"Big" projects are not happening anymore

If you see the video, the gist of it is that from 1900 to 1968 there were incomprehensible advances that exceeded what the imagination thought possible. The atom's nucleus was discovered and its power was harnessed. Machine-based flight was invented and we reached the moon. From 1968 to 2012, no such advances were made. Everything has been a step up from technology that was arguably already available. The first satellite had been launched into space, supersonic travel was possible, DNA had long been discovered, wireless data transmission existed, and computers existed. You would expect advances in what these technologies can do in 44 years, and they have advanced a lot, but we haven't exceeded the dreams from 1968 (see Star Trek and other media from the time). Nothing big has happened. What is wrong?

I propose 4 major obstacles to highly observable progress since the last third of the 1900s.

1. The Cold War. 
Obviously, it helped boost the Apollo missions and landing a man on the moon, but the cold war marked a cultural transition towards "defending from our enemies". Things "became real" with the Cuban missile crisis, space exploration was demoted after the US beat Russia to the moon. Military advances took off; networks (including internet) and GPS are arguably the two biggest changes in how we operate since the mid 60s, both developed by DARPA. I would go as far as saying that the cold war didn't end; it evolved and became multilateral. It "ended" in 1991, while the gulf war was planting another seed of conflict. 21 years later the world is now concerned with terrorism, Iran, and North Korea. The tension has transformed as well, and our world's governments haven't shifted their ways from "defense" to creation. It's ridiculous that we all need to get blasted by x-rays to get anywhere; nobody is trusted. How did we get here and when can we start over?

2. Engineers are where the money/tech is not. 
The US has definitely lost its engineers; to consulting firms, wall street, and other non-engineering positions. Meanwhile, 3rd world countries are mass producing engineers; not to start their own ventures (I would imagine there are less entrepreneurs in developing nations) but to join large companies and carry out others' visions. I grew up in a 3rd world country and studied industrial engineering because manufacturing was booming as the peso weakened; now I have skills fit for a management consultant or project manager. Boards of directors only want to ensure profits for shareholders; an infrastructural revolution that shakes up our paradigms is unlikely to come from the established private sector. Engineers with access to money build dreams and bridge the gap between today and tomorrow.

3. Collaboration has disappeared, partly because of regulation but mostly because of our culture.
Mr. Gekko was wrong, greed is NOT good. Patent trolling is a huge issue, in and out of the computing world, but the biggest issue is greed. Look at Congress. Look at regulations and regulatory institutions. Many of the huge leaps of the 20th century were driven by international collaboration or competition; the Manhattan project had prominent scientists from Europe and America, and cost only $23.1 billion (converted to today's USD). The issues presented in my first proposal are a part of what would make a project like this impossible (no international collaboration on top secret projects, as far as I know), but there is more. With today's bureaucracy and regulations it would have taken 3-4 times as long and 10-20 times as much money to achieve the same results. Our world's political system is controlled by greedy lobbyists, corruption, and little common sense. I am glad that this is slightly changing in the information era.

4. It's a service economy. 
What percentage of engineering students with a 3.3+ GPA end up working for companies that don't create anything tangible? There's nothing wrong with making money but "if you're not busy living, you're busy dying" applies here. If our brains are mostly coming up with ways to pinch cents, they're not coming up with ideas and solutions that will change the world. Why do so many great firms hire a consulting firm instead of their own talent? If you think about it, paying a few million for a 3 month engagement is often less productive than using that to hire your own cream-of-the-crop employees.

Conclusion
Having proposed 4 decent theories for our lack of "quantum leaps" I would expect that the information era brings fundamental changes in the way we collaborate. SOPA/PIPA were stopped by the power of IT; corruption and suspicion will be stopped as well, in time. Once we (the world) collaborate, focus on creating value instead of strife, and produce engineers with an entrepreneurial culture, there will be a new quantum leap. Our governments are at fault for science's stagnation. I want lunar vacations, auto-drive flying cars, package teleportation (wouldn't risk splicing myself!), a vertical city where vehicles are not needed, and an honest, unified world government without boundaries or unnecessary bureaucracy.