Rapid technological progress is a "perfect storm" of the brainy kind. Harry
On 14/12/2007 12:40 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > > Jeff Fink wrote: >> Is it culture that allowed western Europe/America to develop such >> incredible technology while all previous insipient techno societies such >> as China and Egypt failed to mature technically? > > I think this is a misleading question. > > The sum total of human knowledge has increased -- erratically -- as an > exponential. The more we know, the easier it is to discover more, and > the more we can pool our knowledge, the faster it happens. The behavior > of exponential growth leads directly to the illusion that there were > enormous differences in the rate of technological progress between > Europe and the rest of the world. If we look at the full timeline of > human history, on the other hand, and consider when other cultures might > have arrived at a post-industrial society if Europe had not, it appears > that the difference in "arrival time", as a fraction of the length of > human history, would actually have been quite small. > > The early part of an exponential looks "flat" -- if you just look at the > curve locally, it's hard to tell anything's changing. In the time of > Jesus Christ, society surely _looked_ like a zero-sum game to the > inhabitants, because the pace of change was so slow. Ecclesiastes could > write "there is nothing new under the sun", and people could take it as > literally true with no need to hem and haw about how he meant it > figuratively, or claim he was just talking about human behavior, or > whatnot -- it appeared, 2500 years ago, that things were really > completely static. > > But they were not. The sum of human knowledge was increasing, and at > some point the slope of the exponential got steep enough that it was > obvious that things were changing. That happened first in western > Europe -- but the difference in /years/ is actually very small between > where Europe was on the curve versus, say, China, or even the Americas. > > Figure human beings have been "absolutely human" for 100,000 years. The > rate of technological change has only been fast enough for individuals > to easily see it happening during the last 600 years or so. Europe may > have been "ahead" of China by, say, a century, and ahead of the New > World by a handful of centuries -- but on the scale of human history, > that's the blink of an eye. Someone had to get to the industrial > revolution first; it happened to be Europe. If Europe had stumbled, it > would surely have happened anyway, and probably no more than a few > hundred years later. The difference in time to reach the threshold of > advanced technology, given a time scale of 100,000 years, would most > likely have been less than 1% if we had had to "wait" for some other > continent to get there. > > >> I tend to think that >> freedom and the rise of a middle class are essential. There must be >> time and resources available to large groups of people in order to amass >> great amounts of knowledge through experimentation. I don¹t think any >> previous civilizations had those ingredients. > > Perhaps. That's somewhat speculative. > > What is not speculation is that no previous civilization had the same > prior fund of amassed knowledge which was available in Europe at the > dawn of the industrial revolution. > > What is also not speculation is that if something had prevented Europe > from taking the "next step", within another couple of centuries the > amassed knowledge in Asia would have exceeded that which was available > in Europe at the start of the revolution. We can then guess that that, > in turn, might very well have sparked an industrial revolution, > regardless of the sclerotic nature of Oriental politics at the time. > > Freedom in Europe sped things up. Slavery in the new world sped things > up, as well, by making southern plantations practical, and hence fueling > England's foreign trade, which in turn funded industrialization at home. > The connections here are complex and not generally known but appear to > have been significant. But the human knowledge base was increasing > regardless of all that; it seems quite plausible that a scientific and > industrial revolution was inevitable. > > The political situation affected the timing, but was almost surely not > the root cause. > > >> >> >> >> Jeff >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> *From:* R.C.Macaulay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> *Sent:* Thursday, December 13, 2007 8:38 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* [Vo]:OT: Culture and the evolving human >> >> >> >> Been reading this thread with interest at the views expressed. Anyone >> care to expound on the impact of another component .... CULTURE. >> >> What role does culture play in the grand scheme of things? >> >> >> >> Richard >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.1/1183 - Release Date: >> 12/13/2007 9:15 AM >> >> >> No virus found in this outgoing message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.1/1183 - Release Date: >> 12/13/2007 9:15 AM >> >
