SYSK Selects: Have all the good ideas already been discovered?

correct proved me wrong at any rate. Enjoy this episode. Welcome to Stuff You Should Know, a production of My Heart Radios How Stuff Works. Hey, and welcome to the podcast. I'm Josh Clark. With me as always is Charles W. Chuck Bryant. And that makes the stuff you should know. That's right, Yes it is not. They're imitators. I wonder how many times I've said that that makes the stuff you should know. No, that's just the whole spiel, the whole opening. Hey, you welcome to the podcast. Well 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 proud. Okay, well, do you think maybe we could get some cake around here or something? Shrimp cocktail? No, I'm allergic to shrimp now, remember I know, but I still like to throw it out there. Actually,

I had a shrimp wanton the other day and nothing happened. Really, I ate a wanton with shrimp and nothing happened. So it's 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 Yes, 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 open 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 to handles to these things. And

tournament how long it took? Yes, And this is baffled scientists, like, how could it possibly have taken can 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 handle 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 pinpointed 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 rent all time. Shoot, did I ruin it? It's okay. Um. So we go from can't figure out how to attach a handle to a sharp rock? Okay,

a 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 understand 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. 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 like you

should go ahead and shut down the patent office. He clearly had never considered the snuggy 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 reach new heights and they go, oh, well, we didn't know that, and

we there are new ideas, right. It's it's almost 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 silly. It's just ask him to be made a fool of yeah, or for people to maybe people do that on purpose, to go the innovators and to say no, yeah, right, using reverse psychology exactly, that's how innovation works. Yeah, you might as well just give up

reverse psychology drive 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 marketing. 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 edge, but really they're just the packaging of several already extant technologies into a really sharp looking handheld device. But that'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 tele com boom of the late nineties, like this stuff wasn't around. Like it's not true innovation. It's it's kind of repurposing, right, And what you were saying, like the cosmetic changes to a computer. Um. One of the reasons why 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 row than the

hardware side, right. And they're also saying that, um, the green boom is going to drive innovation. That makes sense, like coming up with sustainable packages. Are sustainable solutions? Yeah, totally. One of the other things they pointed out thought was interesting was the they said they said the tech 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. You like your DVD, You're gonna love Blu Ray. But guess what's coming up after blue 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 as much money, which means that nobody's putting any effort into it and money into it. So innovations. 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 out 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. Sort of a reach, you could definitely, Yeah, I think a lot

of these guy's points are a reach. 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. And I think that 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 the other, right, 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 Snuggy. 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 because when you introduce money, there's now, um 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, stuff pholps 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 skimalt 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 ni 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 probably. So 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 they

are 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. It 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 a 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 de Carlo is coming up with is a way to use UM 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 Hu Huang, And you came up with, uh, basically, I'm gonna break this down easy. Instead of saying, let me come up with a 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 this 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, graphing 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 they should be doing. So did you know a graham of this stuff's flattened covers a football field? Am, 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? Oh,

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 who right, We'd be like, oh crap, you have cancer, and we'd cure it right then. Wow. Yeah, that's awesome. Yeah, And that's a good way to approach a cure for cancer.

If you asked me, did I explain that? Well? I think so, I think. And the last winner this year was Jin Hi Lee and Jin is trying to debug the brain circuit useing. You know, we have the Wonder Machine, which is our favorite thing in the world. Fm r I, which measures UH measures 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 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 what specifically on the new ronal 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 opti genetics for a while. We should get this person in here. This is probably as closest forever going to come down to do 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 the n I 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 that and I found them. 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 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? Well, as you 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 hairs. 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. Sure, and an idea necessarily kind of UM invention leads Yeah, it leads to an invention. It's

something we we've created. Like technology, 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'll 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. So 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 mean brain. Sure, but even that look at that that part of the right hemisphere that developed and allowed us to put the acts 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 then 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 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 going to 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, I guess I I agree with you. Um, there's this aspect of the universe that Kant called the new Amenon new Amenon. Okay, 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 a 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 lot to say about it because we've covered it, but it definitely is

along the same line. So you 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 also that 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 name 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 going to 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 Leacy. I think it's a long time ago 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. Right. 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 or the conclusions we're reaching just based on years of thought compiled that may not have been true to begin with. So I mean like we arrive at reality by consensus. Yeah, but is that consensus was that even

accurate along the way? Not necessarily. It's been showing time and time again that it's hasn't been accurate through these um the Five Revolutions, as VM Ramashchandra and puts them. Bernicus 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 d NA, 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 favorites.

And then um, the Fifth Revolution, the neuroscience revolution, that we're all everything, are all of our understanding of 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 we're from blue Rays to Turns and at the end of the day, Josh and Chuck say, we are not out of new ideas. Canna speak for you, go ahead, We are 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. 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 at how stuff works dot com, which means it's time for a sner 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 Peyton in California. Well, hello, I'm sending

this 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 on the year. So I'm gonna start listening to you. Um, actually, I'm saying Peyton is a girl. Peyton maybe a boy? You never know? Oh? Really, yeah, it's in dragyn this 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. We're getting old, I guess so. I most definitely enjoyed the podcast on the OCTOPI and stuff. I thought it was OCTOPI. 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 I've 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 inc you can select rons, but 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 home 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. It's okay, buddy. Anyway, it can make for a lot of fun. So that's my new idea. Okay, And that's um. Lots of love from Peyton age thirteen and Cali. Thanks a lot, Peyton, age thirteen and Callie 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. Stuff you Should Know is a production of

iHeart Radio's How Stuff Works. For more podcasts for my heart Radio is at the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.