I think an issue with this expectation is the assumption that our current set of technology was made for its utility alone. The reality is that most of the innovations of the 20th and 21st century only came about if they had a strong profit angle or lopsided military advantage to go along with them. As such, it's hard to actually do what you propose when everything we have is only stuff that was good enough to make a profit at one time. It's not like a bow and arrow or the wheel, fundamental tools that were built for their own merit, not because the bowstring company had a patent and legally set the standard for what sort of arrow is to be sold in stores or anything like that.
So then we have to take a step back and ask what is actually innovative about our global culture's technology today? Is the 4k TV really that innovative? IMO not really, you are using more energy now to watch the same movies and TV you might have been watching a decade ago. It's not like the bow and arrow, imparting a novel function that didn't exist before. Its just an iteration on existing ideas, just slightly different enough to market on that difference and convince people to sell thing x that does y for thing z that does y. Even when we do work hard to further the capabilities of these innovations, e.g. computers being so much more powerful than they were 15 years ago, are we really reaping that fruit? Or is everyone still using microsoft word, email, and light web browsing like they were doing 25 years ago with hardware that's at least an order of magnitude less powerful?
Real innovation is scarce imo, since we don't invest in innovation, we invest in profit and innovation comes as a side effect, if it comes at all.
> you are using more energy now to watch the same movies and TV you might have been watching a decade ago
I think they're comparing 4K TVs to earlier HD TVs rather than CRTs, though I don't even know if that would be true given various improvements to power efficiency (LED vs CCFL, for example).
A lot of people might not want to admit or accept it, but the primary source of human advancements has been conflicts with wars being the penultimate example.
Don't believe it? Look no further than humans landing on the Moon, a feat that was literally just another front of the Cold War. We literally landed men on the Moon in the name of winning wars. Still don't believe it? Consider the internet, originally devised as a communications network to fucking survive nuclear wars.
Let's be clear: Conflicts are bad, wars are unacceptable. But peace has always led to stagnation. Innovations require competition, and there is no better than competition than literally killing your fellow man.
It seems like a lot of problems could be solved if we unshackle that competitive spirit from deathmaking and point it towards competing against a changing climate
So then we have to take a step back and ask what is actually innovative about our global culture's technology today? Is the 4k TV really that innovative? IMO not really, you are using more energy now to watch the same movies and TV you might have been watching a decade ago. It's not like the bow and arrow, imparting a novel function that didn't exist before. Its just an iteration on existing ideas, just slightly different enough to market on that difference and convince people to sell thing x that does y for thing z that does y. Even when we do work hard to further the capabilities of these innovations, e.g. computers being so much more powerful than they were 15 years ago, are we really reaping that fruit? Or is everyone still using microsoft word, email, and light web browsing like they were doing 25 years ago with hardware that's at least an order of magnitude less powerful?
Real innovation is scarce imo, since we don't invest in innovation, we invest in profit and innovation comes as a side effect, if it comes at all.