Have all the good ideas already been discovered?

you've said it about two hundred and seventy. Sometimes I think, luckily we have them all saved and we could count we do. I don't know if it's lucky, though, Chuck, that's a lot of shows, dude, we should do something special for three hundred. That's like, that's a lot of shows. It is that makes me probably Okay, Well, do you think maybe we could get some cake around here or something? Shrimp cocktail the love of Pete. No, I'm allergic to shrimp now, I remember, I know, But to let a

throat out there. Actually, I had a shrimp wanton the other day and nothing happened. I had a wanton with shrimp and nothing happened. So it was just like tiny little bits of shrimp. And I don't know either that or I'm getting stronger. Maybe so superhuman, you might say trans human speaking of human um, chuck. There is a recent study that came out in part from one of our universities here in the city, Emory, right down the street,

Great School. There's been this problem that's been plaguing researchers for a really long time, and that is at the beginning of the Lower Paleolithic period, which is about two points seven million years ago, we started using sharp rocks as bashing and cutting tools. So we figured that out. Okay, you can take a rock, that's technology. That's not horse, that's technology. Yes, okay, you can take this rock and you can use it to when a coconut or the

head of someone who's wrong. Do you using an implement to complete attack? Well, specifically sharp rocks? Okay? It took two million years the end of the Lower Paleolithic period before we figured out that we could actually attach handles to these things. And tournament how long it took? Yes, And this is baffled scientists, like, how could it possibly have taken two million years to go from using your hand to attaching a stick. You know, this doesn't make

any sense. So, um, well they were dumb back then. Well a dumb is close to it. They would literally were lacking the region of the brain needed. Apparently, according to this new study, Um, they they basically we developed a region in the right hemisphere, specifically the supra marginal gyrus, which allowed us to go, hey, let's put a hand on this. And after we did that, we moved out of Africa and started colonizing the rest of the world. So that's they've been pointed the region of the brain

that is specific to innovation, too specific to um stone toolmaking. Okay, I thought you meant innovation in general. No, like that's where your ideas come from. No, give me a second,

old ramp all shoot, did every rue it? It's okay? Um. So we go from I can't figure out how to attach a handle to a sharp rocky two million years we figured that out, We leave Africa, and we start colonizing the rest of the world, and all of a sudden things start entering light speed, right, And it seems like over the last couple hundred years, you know, especially since the Industrial Revolution, our ability to innovate, to grasp new ideas, to understand the world around us has just

been hitting this hyper speed, and a lot of people wonder if we've reached a point where all the ideas, all the good ones at least, have already been discovered, all the we under stand how everything works, and there's really just figuring out how to dot the eyes and cross the teas right right. There was actually a guy who famously said in guy named Charles Buell. I love this quote. He was, He was the commissioner of the

Patents Office. That's attributed to him, I should say, but he said something like everything that can be invented has already been invented. And he said this in a memo, basically saying like you should go ahead and shut down the patent office. He clearly had never considered the Snuggie Josh or anything that's been invented since. So here's what

I'm gonna say. I'm gonna go ahead and give you my summation early on, Okay, is that I think people think at various times in history that they've plateaued, and then I think things happen. People come along innovators and then they reached new heights and they go, oh, well, we didn't know that, and we there are new ideas, right. It's it's on most umb. It almost displays a shameful lack of historic awareness to say we've reached the end

of all of our good ideas. It's just it's just asking to be made a fool of, yeah, or for people to maybe people do that on purpose, to go the innovators and say, oh, yeah, right, using reverse psychology, you know that's how innovation works. Yeah, you might as well just give up. Reverse psychology drives innovation. There are people though, that say that technological that real technological innovation

has been stalled for quite a while. Yes, after the nineties computer revolution, everything else since then has kind of been like, uh, packaging it and better looking cases and sleeker designs, and it's all like design oriented it is, or marketing oriented. These these guys Cedric Lagare and Eric Virdo,

we're both with scheme of business school. Um basically say, smartphones, Yes, they seem incredibly new and cutting in, but really they're just the packaging of several already extant technologies into a really sharp looking handheld device, but there's still a new idea.

I would argue it is still a new idea. But I think what their point is is saying, like, but before the late nineties and before the eighties, let's say, with computers, but especially the tech boom of the telecom boom of the late nineties, Like this stuff wasn't around, Like, it's not true innovation rights, it's kind of repurposing and what you were saying, like the cosmetic changes to a computer. Um. One of the reasons why they they believe that this is going on is because we've come to a point

in the computer revolution. I think, chuck, where, Um, it's not you can still make tons of cash just by changing the casing of a CPU. Yeah, there's like no money in innovation basically, is what I got from this one article is that innovation costs more than it's worth when you can just repackage what you've got in a sleeker design and people buy it up. Exactly. Um, these two authors of this article, UM predict that we're gonna

have two trends that will drive innovation. I guess currently right, yes, that consolidation where basically like especially with I think they're talking just about computers. Yeah, because they're saying the big hardware firms are going to all consolidate all of the smaller hardware firms to where they'll just basically be like the Big three or five, and that will leave it to the software firms to compete and innovate, so we'll see more innovation in the software side rather than the

hardware side. And they're also saying that, um, the green boom is going to drive innovation that makes sense, like coming up with sustainable packages or sustainable solutions. Yeah, totally. One of the other things I pointed out thought was interesting was the they said they said the tes uh they call it the tech refresh cycle is too small right now. So what's happening is they'll say, Um, you like your CD, well you're gonna love the the Super Audio CD or Blu Ray. Do you like your DVD.

You're gonna love Blu Ray. But guess what's coming up after Blu Ray. It's gonna be like Super Blue Ray. It's happening so fast. People aren't abandoning their current systems. They're just like, you know what, I'm gonna hold on because I don't want to be the guy stuck with the laser disc player in a couple of years, so all of a sudden, the same thing happens. No one's buying it, so it's not worth a much money, which means that nobody's putting any effort into it and money

into it. So innovation sees right. And there's a guy, um named Edmund Phelps who's a professor of political economy at Columbia University, right, and he's basically kind of saying the same thing. He's saying that, Um, there's not enough money going toward innovation. But rather than the the onus being put on consumers not buying blue rays of fear of looking like laser disc jerks, Um, it's actually government

and big business that's not pouring money into small innovators. Yeah, he said, that's the innovation is the only thing not subsidized by the United States government, which he says is actually attacks in a way because it's not being subsidized. Reach. You could definitely, Yeah, I think a lot of these guy's points are reached. But um, what he's suggesting is if the government isn't pouring money into big business so

that they can pour money into I guess small venture firms. Um, these people who are in their garages aren't going to take you know, risks, They're not going to innovate. There's no incentive. Right. I disagree with this. I dispute this because he's saying, like the people who do work in their garages and you know, are the Steve Jobs and Bill Gates in the seventies, that they were driven by this lust for money exactly. And I think that's wrong.

I think that people innovate first and foremost to get this idea out of their head and birth into reality. Right. I'm glad you said this because I completely agreed. Regardless of what you think of the Facebook. Mark Zuckerberg didn't invent Facebook to make gobs of money. He invented to make real friends. Yeah, to to innovate. And that's what that's my point that you made is that these people in the garage, the true innovators. They don't care if

they have two pennies to rub together. They're still gonna be trying to innovate and make a name for themselves and come up with something awesome. Right. And now there are people out there who are trying to innovate for you know, the riches sure. The guy who invented the snugg he wasn't in his garage and just wanted to kind of get this out or else I'm never gonna sleep. Yeah, that's the people that are looking for the next get

rich quick thing. But I think you can also make a point that, um, when you introduce money to innovation, it leads to actual stagnation. Um, because when you introduce money, there's now uh something to lose, and people are less willing to take risks, and risk is one of the driving the willingness to take risk is one of the

driving forces of innovation. You know. Yeah, well, I Phelps had a good idea, uh and this will never happen, of course, because it's a good idea to create the first national Bank of innovation all capitalized capitalized not all caps, but each word is capitalized. He should do it all in all caps with exclamation points. But basically, it would be a bank that you could go and partner, you know, as a startup company and partner with his bank for financing and you know, get I would guess some sort

of low interest loans to spur innovation. Right. That was a great idea, So it is. It is a good idea and this does happen in the real world, and the government does pour money into innovation. He's not exactly correct in that sense. And I also kind of resented that he placed big business in between you know, people in their garage innovating and you know, government subsidies that we have to have big business give them the money and then skim a little off the top and give

it to this guy in the garage. He's drawing broad strokes here. For sure. There are government programs, and we'll talk about one from the National Institutes of Health where the government says, hey, you have a really good idea, Mr or MS research scientists, and we're gonna give you enough money to survive for three years. Yeah, because the deal is you can always get grants if you know, you put together a nice package. But this program with the n i H what's it called the New Innovator Award,

Director's New Innovator Award. This is uh intended for people who have such a good idea, but it's so new that they don't have the data to write a grant where people would say, like, it looks like you're onto something here, So they're sort of throwing money at stuff. That's like, you know, you're the dude in the garage and we believe in this idea. Go see what you can find out, right, and we're keeping big business out of the way. Yes, but now that and I h

owns you for the rest of your career. Yeah, So let's talk about UM. There's three people at U c l A That got these grants recently and they're up to some kind of some interesting one could say innovative stuff, right. They have some good ideas, hugely innovative about how to UM approach problems, like the professor Dino di Carlo. All

these I think these people are younger than us. By the way, UM Dino de Carlo is working on ways to basically apply heat or pressure or chemicals to very specific sites in cells using nanoparticles and magnets, which is tough, sounds like a winning idea to me. Is basically one of the big problems we have with UM getting cells, engineering cells to do specific things, like UM, I don't know,

attack other cells for fun. Like if tell me that wouldn't be like a big Christmas gift this year, if you could like make cells fight with one another under the microscope, UM then what you have to basically try to engineer the cell, you know, time after time after time, and basically program it to do what you want it to do. What Di Carlo is coming up with is a way to use very tiny magnets and even tinier nano particles that can basically you, my brain is so small.

When you move the magnet with a joystick, it attracts the nano particles in a certain direction or whatever, and you can have the nano particles apply heat or pressure or a specific chemical to a specific site on a cell and direct it to go attack another cell for your pleasure. That's awesome, your amusement. So one point five mill goes to uh de Carlo and for a good reason. And for a good reason. The other winner, one of the other winners, was Hugh Wang, and you came up

with basically, I'm gonna break this down easy. Instead of saying, let me come up with cure for cancer, hu Wang said, let me come up with a way to detect cancer so early, like way earlier than we've ever detected it before, that we can stop in his track essentially curing cancer. And he's doing this, actually I don't know, she's doing this um through uh nano material called graphine that is just one atom thick. Yes, graphine is like the super

clearly not of this world material. It's literally a carbon atom thick. That's it. So, but it is a biological sensor to tell you when cells aren't doing the things that should be doing. So did you know a graham of this stuff? It's flattened covers a football field. Wow, it's ultra light. That is thin, my friend, it's one atom thin. So one point five mail to hu Wang, Right, well, did you explain how? Let me let me try my

hand at this. So basically what you do is you um, you put a graphine conductor transistor UM in a cell and when these biological markers right say his stones or something like that, start to accumulate, they're attracted to the graphing. And these, by the way these biological markers are, we found are correlated with the growth of cancer, the origin of cancer. That's where they're starting. UM. And when some of these markers like are attracted to the graphing, they

create an electrical charge that we can sense. And the graphine is so thin but so highly conductive that um with just a couple of these molecules attaching to the graphing. We would be able to detect it and be like, oh right, we'd be like, oh crap, you have cancer and we'd cure it right then. Wow, Yeah, that's awesome. Yeah, and it's a good way to approach a cure for cancer. If you asked me, did I explain that? Well? I

think so. I think the last winner this year was Jen Hill Lee and Jin is trying to debug the brain circuit using you know, we have the Wonder Machine, which is our favorite thing in the world fm R I, which measures uh measures. It measures blood and oxygen levels in the brain, so it tells you these areas light up there called bold signals blood and oxygen level dependent.

They light up to correspond a certain brain right, And we've talked about this before, like you're seeing that there's more oxygen that's going to that part of the brain. So we've assumed this is the basis of the f m R I. If it has more oxygen being delivered to it, that must mean that that region of the brain is active. When you show somebody a picture of you know, their kid, like being carried away into a van that you know that's the fear region right there. Um.

That doesn't really say anything though, and it doesn't. It doesn't also implicate well it's it's not it's showing. Okay, well there's more oxygen in this region, right? What this is, um? What what genuine Lee is looking at is um how or what specifically on the neuronal level is being activated? Right? And he's using opt to genetics, So it's going to be called the O F M R I. And that's beyond even what we thought was the wonder machine. So

this is the super duper wonder machine. Basically, he's using light to allow genetically specified neurons to be activated. Right. Do you know, um, are one of our listeners that Emory has been harping on us doing one on opt to genetics for a while. We should get this person in here. This is probably his closest forever gonna come out and it uh, well it's a great idea though obviously because Jin Young Lee won one of the Innovator

Awards as well. Yes, and they give these out every year, so they clearly believe that we're not out of good ideas. No excellent point choke h no, and we're not out of good ideas. So yes, Chuck, we we you pick those out. You found those guys all right, Well I didn't personally find them. You're like, these guys should get the UM. There are very good ideas out there, right, But there is a debate that's raging in science UM about whether these ideas like optogenetics or um, you know,

using graphine or nanoparticles to cure detect cancer. UM, are these variations on a theme? Are they applying cosmetic changes to a computer rather than really creating new parts to it? Right? And basically the question is, um, are are are there any more major discoveries for us to make or are these really just basically at Remember I've always said like we we have the pieces on the table, now we just have to put it together. Is that the point

that we're at? UM said we were, I did, and then we started researching this, and I'm like, I wonder, I think I still do believe that. UM. But within that though, there's so much that it's to me a little bit like splitting hair. Well, but you're absolutely right, especially when you throw in the word discovered, right, Discovery indicates something that's already out there. We just figure it out or stumble upon it and an idea necessarily kind of UM invention leads, Yeah, it leads to an invention.

It's something we we've created, like technology. So let's talk about discovery, right. We have a lot of UM problems that are still facing us and how we understand the universe, like human consciousness. How do brain cells create our understanding of the world, like what we see as reality? How is that possible? And can we figure everything out? Well,

that's the big question. Is there there's a UM there's Like I said, there's a lot of debate about whether or not we will ever be able to figure everything out, or if the human brain just simply isn't UM programmed to understand the world? Uh fully, you know, will will.

There's a guy who's a physicist. His name is um Russell Standard, and he's written this book called The End of Discovery, and basically he's saying he says that we're in quote a transient age of human development, right where we're past the point where we figured out you can put a handle on a rock and make it an ax. But we're right before the point where we can no longer make discoveries. Not because we've understood everything or figured

everything out. But because we've reached the limits of what is noble for the human brain. But even that, look at that, that part of the the right hemisphere that developed and allowed us to put the axe handle on, right, who's to say that our brain won't that we won't reach that point where we can't know anything any longer, or I can't know everything? And in uh, we evolve even further and all of a sudden we're even better

at um understanding our world. Right, But will we end up eventually coming to a point where humans understand everything and there is no more discovery to make I say no, because he he points out in here and this is I think very valid from the Midnight century, the nineteenth century. I'm sorry they said that. A lot of people in science said, you know, we've kind of debunked religion and

philosophy and all these things with scientific discovery. But he points out, and I agree that even if you figure out all the problems of science, which will never happen, there's still human life and consciousness in the subjectivity of what goes on inside a person's head. You're never gonna solve that's not solvable, right, that's what I argue. That's subjectivism. Yeah, before I think I believe in that there, well, they're

the whole the I guess I I agree with you. Um, there's this aspect of the universe that Kant called the new Amenon, new amenon that was specifically tailored from my thick time. But basically the new aminon is the thing itself right where um it has. It's just the objective. It's the objective universe, and we don't interact with that.

Everything we know and understand is subjective, and this is where subjectivism is is based that basically we can never fully know anything or and we certainly won't ever know everything because one thing that will always be elusive is what you see. My reality is different than your reality exactly,

and there's different. There's an extreme version of it called so solipsism, right, yes, and solipsism is the the um this extreme version of subjectivism that basically says, um, we everything is so subjective that I can't fully verify that you exist. The only thing I know that exists is my reality, but all of you may be made up. I may be totally completely out of my mind and actually in a padded cell right now and none of you are really real Well, that's sort of touches on

the whole quantum mechanics thing, right, don't you think Please? Well, I mean, I don't have a whole to say about it because we've covered it, but it definitely is along the same line. So I think, well, yeah, there's a there's an interpretation of quantum mechanics that basically says, um, everything we know about the universe we know through observation, and but once you observe it, it it changes. That's part

of it. And when when we observe, we we gain information, right, but we can't observe everything at once, So all we know exists in our reality for sure, is what we're observing. So everything else, like what's going on out there in the office right now, doesn't exist because we're not there to observe it. Mind blowing. Once again, it is mind blowing, but it all So we say all this not just to you know, rock out to Floyd, but um, because this is this is what science is up against. This

isn't just jibberish. This isn't just philosophical jibberish, as much as science would like it to be. There is a true problem with the fact that subjectivity, not objectivity, is how we interact with our universe, even though science is based it's supposed to be based exclusively on objectivity. Right. Well, uh, Stephen Hawking, you might have heard of him and another dude named Leonard load Loader. Now is how I'm going to pronounce that there's a silent m in there somewhere.

They have a new book called The Grand Design, and they are now saying that I think scientists used to say we're gonna find the theory of everything. Now they're saying, you know what, We're probably not going to find the theory of everything, but it's probably gonna be more like what they call, quote a family of interconnected theories which

describe your reality under very specific conditions. And this is kind of huge for Stephen Hawking because he's long been a big supporter of the theory of everything, which takes the standard model of physics, includes gravity, which has always been elusive, and then marries it with quantum mechanics to explain everything. That's the theory of everything. It's one theory that explains everything, right, like that surfer guy exactly, Garrett Leci.

I think it's damn it was. And you know it's going to be years before he's shown to be correct or incorrect. But Hawking saying it's probably not going to be the case. There's going to there's too many different variables that don't fit together. But the thing that really scares a physicist, that will scare any physicist, is this sports. Those are those models that we've come up with. Are they how the universe actually works? Or how we look at the universe and see how it works? You see

what I'm saying. There's that subjectivism again. It can't be whipped well. And all the things that we've said over the years that we have formed to be true, are those even true? Or are are the conclusions we're reaching just based on years of thought compiled that may not have been true to begin with. So I like we arrive at reality by consensus. Yeah, but is that consensus?

Was that even accurate along the way? Not necessarily. It's been shown time and time again that it's it hasn't been accurate through these um the five revolutions, as VM Ramaschandra and puts them. Arnicus Copernicus was the first one who said that Earth is not the center of the universe,

Darwinism dark very good. Chuck Darwin's says like, hey, we're actually just a bunch of apes DNA Freud Freud Freud saying like we we actually are driven by desires that we can't control and aren't really aware of DNA, which is saying I think James Watson, who found DNA along with Francis Crick, said quote, there are only molecules, everything else is sociologist. I love that quote, man, It's one

of my favorite. And then um, the Fifth Revolution, the neuroscience revolution, that we're all everything, are all of our understanding movements and and experiences are nothing but um neuronal transmissions, electrochemical impulses. Right, so there's not even sociology that even is just based on firing neurons. Right, That's that's where we're at right now. That's why I say, I think we have everything on the table, just haven't put it together.

But it's entirely possible historically speaking, to say, well we thought that before and we didn't. And what revolution is next? Will that will the next revolution get us over the wall of subjectivism or will that be the wall that we always run into? This is a good one, and well, I was worried about this one. It came out pretty good in it. I think, so, yeah, don't you like it when we like pat ourselves in the back of the end of the show, I think this one deserves it.

Man well, so from Blue Rays to Carons And at the end of the day, Josh and Chuck say, we are not out of new ideas. Can I speak for you? Go ahead, We're not out of new ideas. And just when you think you're out of new ideas, just when you think of plateaued comes up you wang along to say no, no, no, no, there are new ideas and here's one you know not give me the cash exactly. If you want to learn more about innovation and new ideas, we have tons of stuff all over the site. Just

type in innovation, type in discovery. I'm sure that'll bring up a ton of stuff. Um, and type in neurons. That will bring up some pretty cool stuff too. Agreed. Uh, you can type all those words into the handy search bar how stuff works dot com, which means it's time for a listener mail. Yes, Josh, I'm gonna follow this very heavy podcast with the opposite an email for him Okay,

this is from our thirteen year old fan Payton in California. Well, hello, I'm sending us from my eye touch while laying in bed. I'm supposed to be asleep, so anyway, I just started listening to your podcast after my friend Claire. Yes, that's the Claire from California whose email you read on the air, who thinks Jerry looks like Tina f A. Uh. Claire is his his Peyton's friend. So she said, oh, you

got in the year, so i'letna starting listening to you. Um. Actually, I'm saying Peyton is a girl, Peten maybe a boy. You never know? Oh really, yeah, it's indragynus right, yeah, ambivalent at least. Uh. Claire posted on her Facebook page that I said, listen to the most recent podcast because you guys read her letter or something. I thought it was so cool. Claire and I are really good friends. Anyways, I love this podcast. Gosh, I feel so boring because

I keep saying podcast. Is there like another word for that? Jared laughed at that. Anyways, I definitely she does that thing like the kids do now where they put like eight s at the end of a word. Have you seen that yeah, I don't get that. I don't either, original, I guess. So. I most definitely enjoyed the podcast on the Octopi and stuff I thought was Octopie. I thought it was informational and funny. By the way, this email

doesn't make any sense. It's because my eye touch is dumb and auto correct words that have already spelled right ERG moving on your iPhone does that too? And mind does that? What's this? An email written with one of those pens that has like four different color ink you

can select rons that it feels like. But the reason I brought that up is I have an idea to start a website called my ipop my iPhone spelled what dot com Because you ever look at some of them you sinned and you're like, can you please make sure you take the sofa out of the oven when you get them when you meant to say, um sturgeon, let's say surgeon is so far I would surgeon, okay, take the surgeon out of the oven? Which is I think so much better. I wish you would have planned this anyway.

It can make for a lot of fun. So that's my new idea. And that's some lots of love from Peyton, aged thirteen and Cali thanks a lot of patent age thirteen and a boy or girl. We're not exactly sure, but either way, we appreciate you taking the time to write in. And if you have a movie that Chuck and I have not seen, you assume we haven't seen that you think we should see, best movie, best overlooked movie of all time. We're always looking for good suggestions. Wrap it up in an email and send it to

Stuff podcast at how stuff works dot com. For more on this and thousands of other topics, visit how stuff works dot com. The how stuff Works dot Com i phone app is coming soon. Get access to our content in a new way, articles, videos, and more all on the go. Check out the latest podcasts and blog post and see what we're saying on Facebook and Twitter. Coming soon to iTunes. Brought to you by the reinvented two thousand twelve camera. It's ready, are you