Was Technical Revolution a Fluke of History?

[scott712]

It seems to me that our scientific revolution was something of a fluke of history. If there had been no Crusades and collisions of Eastern and Western cultures there might have been no Rennaisance. If there had been no Protestant Reformation then people might not have considered other ways of looking at the world. Burning people at the stake puts a real damper on people's creativity. Some might argue that the one great invention of the printing press made progress all but inevitable. I just don't know.

[kashi]

Fascinating topic. It's obviously hard to conclusively prove whether or not the development of technology was inevitable or, as you say, happened by chance (a small chance at that). Personally I think that humans making technological progress is inevitable. Religion slowed down our progress (eg. burning people at the stake during the Middle Ages), but there were always individuals who rebelled against the authorities and made scientific discoveries (even if they were ignored for a couple of centuries). Human ingenuity and curiosity are partly what allowed us to survive many thousands of years ago. They are too strong an instinct for the technological revolution to be a fluke of history (in my opinion).

[zephyr46]

Do you think it becomes more inevitable today as more of us are sucked into TV and Multinational companies focus on making profit, and tech companies try to make money with Gimic technology. Have you noticed that Playstation X box and Game cube all play CD DVD and there own games, but you can't buy one computer that is cross compatible ? Do you remember the palm pilots and not pads, they are still around, but the average mobile phone does just about everything and more that they do. When we do get to the stage of tv on our mobiles, with video and bradband, what then? can we think beyond? There are sections of the community who live in perpetual rejection of technology because it doesn't address human concerns. Revolutions are invetable as are revelations. I think they are born of a sense of desire to better ourselves, to change things we don't like or to improve to add to and understand. Change is inevitable

[Matthew]

It was inevitable. The technical revolution could have happened sooner, it could have happened later.

Do you remember the palm pilots and not pads, they are still around, but the average mobile phone does just about everything and more that they do. When we do get to the stage of tv on our mobiles, with video and bradband, what then?

zephyr46, there are mobile phones which have TV on it.

[Haglund]

Originally posted by scott712@Oct 28 2003, 12:54 AM
It seems to me that our scientific revolution was something of a fluke of history. If there had been no Crusades and collisions of Eastern and Western cultures there might have been no Rennaisance. If there had been no Protestant Reformation then people might not have considered other ways of looking at the world. Burning people at the stake puts a real damper on people's creativity. Some might argue that the one great invention of the printing press made progress all but inevitable. I just don't know.

I see one of the greatest technological revolutions to be the agricultural revolution about 10000 years ago or so. This led to people living at the same spot all the time as farmers. This both required as well as permitted technological advancements. Technology wasn't inevitable if we go back to a time before we started to develop anything like that, before we first started to make simple tools or learn to control fire. It seems to me that in the end it was a result of evolution that made it possible for us to make better and better tools.

From the little I know about the crusades, you are probably right. But maybe there would have been a rennaisance anyway, and I do believe it would have come sooner or later. The sad thing is that it was needed in the first place, after centuries of theocratic oppression. The Dark Ages is said to have started with the christians burning down the great library of Alexandria.

The printing press was extremely important for progress. All of a sudden it was easy to print huge amounts of texts quicker than ever before. Possibly the first information revolution, with the second one being the one that started well over a hundred years ago with the invention of the telegraph (which is in some ways a distant ancestor of the internet).

[Matthew]

There may be a third information revolution, but any future revolutions won't be all that big, there'll probably not be as important (they won't start as much development). But a big informational revolution will come if we discover how to send information at speeds faster than light.

[ulgah]

Originally posted by Parker@Oct 28 2003, 07:27 AM
The Dark Ages is said to have started with the christians burning down the great library of Alexandria.

Were there Christians before Christ? As I understand it, Julius Caesar burned the great library, about 48 BC. I always thought, there were no Christians until after Christ. Little do I know. :unsure:

[stevenowens23]

Were there Christians before Christ? As I understand it, Julius Caesar burned the great library, about 48 BC. I always thought, there were no Christians until after Christ. Little do I know.

That's one version, but Edward Gibbon in his "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" noted that some of the library survived and was later ultimately destroyed by Christian zealots in the reign of Theophilus in about 390AD, round about the start of the Dark Ages...

[GOURDHEAD]

That's one version, but Edward Gibbon in his "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" noted that some of the library survived and was later ultimately destroyed by Christian zealots in the reign of Theophilus in about 390AD, round about the start of the Dark Ages...

The destruction of the library was probably a blessing. It would have entrenched a culture that gave too much respect to Plato and Aristotle whose ideas were "protected" from logic by the "early church. It is better to think in terms of evolution than revolution. Evolution tries all that is attemptable regardless of its contemptibility. That which works best will float to the top and form the crest of progress in technology development. Lets not be too hard on the formulators of christianity. Had the ethics of the founders been followed, sans the cultural power struggles, the dark ages (for Europe) would not have occurred. The concepts of freedom, love of truth, mercy, and compassion promoted by them are even today (finally) coming to fruition and will progress more rapidly as these concepts are more fully embraced.

Our technological development is no fluke even though its fits and starts may be. Neither is that of our galactic competitors. Of the many solutions available to the universe for becoming aware of itself, we are only one and only one will prevail in the end. Let's hope for our progeny's sake that it is us or at least includes our progeny.

[MoonZeroTwo]

The destruction of the library was probably a blessing.

Whoo, I can't agree with that one! The destruction of the Alexandria Library - (a long spanning process, that was completed by the Catholic Church) - is for me perhaps the most disgraceful events in human history.

I think Plato strove for logic, but intuition/superstitition crept into it a lot. Aristotle tried somewhat to trim off this "intuition" and hone in on the core logic. Basically if it wasn't for these Greek heroes, we wouldn't have science today.

I can still read Plato & find creative insights into life & death and things...

[Floored_Music]

Many aspects of the "technical revolution" have not occured just once, or even within a single culture. For example, the Hellenistic age of the Greeks saw people like Archemedes inventing advanced gears used for tracking the astrological positions of the planets to a degree of accuracy only repeated since the invention of the modern computer. It was these gears that enabled the odometer which played a pivotal role in the military advances that created the Roman Empire. Recall that this was long before the Renaissance, which was actually in many cases only a rediscovery of science once known in the Classical and Hellenistic Greek periods. Like mentioned previously, much of this knowledge was collected for over 800 years in the Great Library of Alexandria. The library's destruction, had our propensity for creating technology been a fluke, should have been a death knell.

In the 1200s, Francis Bacon envisioned the camera and the television based on his observations on the nature of light. Most of his research was destroyed as well(again by those that view truths in absolutes, hmmmm...). Yet here we sit with cameras and television.

Less specifically, how many human cultures developed similar paper and basket weaving technologies independent of each other? Technology is nothing more than the science of human tool use. Whether you are talking about the earliest of stone tools, or the most advanced computer calculations, all technology is built on the foundation of creative tool use. Tool use was essential to the development of pictographic languages, which in turn led to more creative tool use through the sharing of ideas. It is cyclic.

No, I'd have to say if our technology is a fluke, it's a fluke only because we managed to evolve far enough to pick up the opposable thumb. The rest, as they say, is history.

[ASEI]

I think technology development is probably a function of population and population concentration. As people become more concentrated and can interact more, greater levels of specialization and efficiency are achieved. This leads to more and more free time and available effort to apply to technological development. This trend would probably happen with any group of people if you give it enough time.

[Tom2Mars]

Hey Asei!, You've been gone awhile! How ya doin?

What you said makes sense. Although, maybe something has to provide an impetus for change sometimes. I just read an article on an archeology site,

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/pac...tah&floc=wn-np

, and the Indians occupied the site for 3,000 years. Didn't move past basic arrowheads. I finished a major in Anthropology, and we learned that when the climate was consistent, change was very slow. They lived in good harmony with their environment and didn't need to change much to meet the basic needs for survival.

For the people of today, I'm sure that if a 30 Kilometer asteroid was detected early enough to "innovate" a response, all kinds of technical responses would happen very quickly, especially in the 'population centers'. I'd love to see the 'specialists' hustle on new priorities.

[bossman20081]

If my knowlledge of history is right , the Europeans fought more often the Indians did. (Native Americans is the correct term I believe)War brings better technology. (rockets, computers, guns, nuclear) After the war, industry makes it better and uses it for peaceful reasons. (well sometimes) That could be the reason Native Americans were less devolped, though Im no expert; its just my opinion.

[DarkChapter]

For example, NASA spent $9million developing a pen that could write in space

The Russians took pencils for a grand total of $5....

[GOURDHEAD]

I still say the destruction of the great library at Alexandria was a blessing and the untimely demise of the dinosaurs was a curse. Our rate of ascension to higher intelligence and better technology would have been advanced had the dinosaurs survived and retarded had the library survived. Lucky for me there's no way to prove me wrong. Although I'm not so sure our blood sucking ancestors and their mammalian cousins didn't do the dinosaurs in. Parasites and their potential for being disease vectors can be very destructive.

[StarLab]

Hey, GH, there was more in the Library other than the works of Aristotle and Ptolemy, the two historical figures whom I hate more than Heisenberg.

[GOURDHEAD]

Hey, GH, there was more in the Library other than the works of Aristotle and Ptolemy, the two historical figures whom I hate more than Heisenberg.

Tsk!tsk! Hate is a ubiquitous detriment to good health, sound thinking, and other forms and categories of problem solving. Each of those folk were valuable contributors, just not worthy of worship. I cited the cream of the crop, which should also include Archimedes, in an attempt to put a cap on the loss.

Don't you guess that whatever knowledge of lasting value that was stored there was also loose in the various adjacent cultures in the cults and schools of the time and evolved into what we "know" today and was as well more free of the formal dogmatization that the library would have imbued?.

[StarLab]

OK, so maybe it wasn't perfect...but everyone else is right in saying that its destruction began the Dark Ages, a perilous time for science.

[Bobunf]

Middle Eastern and European history from the fall of the Roman Empire until the Renaissance are immensely rich and deep stories, which can’t be summarized in a few sentences, and interpretation of which certainly isn’t enhanced by factual errors.

For instance, Francis Bacon lived from 1561 to 1626, not in the 1200’s. He was contemporary with Elizabeth I, Shakespeare, Hobbs, and Galileo. I think he would be immensely surprised at any association of his writings with cameras or televisions. I didn’t find anything about TV in “The Great Instauration” or “Novum Organum.” He wrote in Early Modern English, and so is a little difficult but, as with Shakespeare, is completely accessible to modern readers with a little effort. One of his most famous statements was, “If it be barren, set it to ought,” which I’ll leave my readers to interpret.

To evaluate the importance of the Crusades in terms of cultural transfer, one must consider the role of Christian pilgrimage to the Holy Lands for centuries before the First Crusade, and the role of the Byzantium Empire, which did exist as part of the Roman Empire for centuries and which was a continuous intact political, religious and cultural entity until 1453. Byzantium had many libraries and centers of learning and art during its 1123 years, and was easily and frequently accessed by Europeans, Arabs, Persians and others.

There was substantial trade with many European entities such as Venice and Genoa. The Byzantines maintained a strong presence in Greece for centuries. One can still visit vast elaborate, nearly intact structures at Mistra near Sparta.

The role of the early Christians can’t be dismissed as simple library burners, or as Gibbon might maintain as the sowers of the seeds of Rome’s destruction. The effect of Christianity on the Roman economic system, particularly on slavery, was profound; and I think most modern people would agree, desirable. The end of slavery as a principle mainstay of the economic system caused tremendous dislocations and problems, which did not look like progress. Byzantium was never as dependent on slavery as Rome.

The other truly significant political role played by Christianity into the modern age, was as a countervailing power to that of the state, which really meant the monarch. Learning how to run large, complex political units with large numbers of individuals participating in decision making was a difficult and very long drawn out problem that humans had to solve.

Until the modern era large, complex political entities were ruled by one person; no other way seemed to work or last. Depending on one person is dangerous, and the issues of succession even more so. Representative democracy was the answer, a new thing under the Sun. And it’s hard to see how the philosophy, understanding, examples, and opportunities could have arisen without religion.

Bob

[StarLab]

Yeah, nothing against Christianity though, but when the Roman Empire was destroyed, Christianity was the only aspect of Roman life which truly survived! This religion was abused by a family of people, who created Holy Nations and made everyone else work for them, via a dark blanket of Christianity, for a near millenium!

[Bobunf]

”when the Roman Empire was destroyed, Christianity was the only aspect of Roman life which truly sur-vived!”

I don’t think this is true at all. Byzantium, a direct off-shoot of Rome survived for another millenium. Roman institutions, architecture, engineering, art and literature survived in what is now Britain, Spain, France, Italy, Romania, and much of North Africa. The ideas, institutions, and examples of Rome contin-ued to have on impact on the world to the present day.

“This religion was abused by a family of people”

On what basis do you determine a religion—a faith system—is abused? With what doctrines do you dis-agree and why is your view of this matter of faith correct as opposed to those who actually lived it? And who were these “family of people?”

“who created Holy Nations”

Which nations were these? Venice? Sicily? The Papal States? The Holy Roman Empire?

“and made everyone else work for them, via a dark blanket of Christianity, for a near millenium!”

That’s not an interpretation one is likely to get from any historian. I don’t think that’s how it really worked. But you do have to work at understanding very diverse and different cultures from ours, intellec-tually challenging philosophies, very complex politics, as well as much different economic systems.

If it’s not worth the effort, maybe you shouldn’t say too much that might be too revealing.

[KeiZka]

Originally posted by stevenowens23@Jul 18 2004, 09:56 PM

Were there Christians before Christ? As I understand it, Julius Caesar burned the great library, about 48 BC. I always thought, there were no Christians until after Christ. Little do I know.

That's one version, but Edward Gibbon in his "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" noted that some of the library survived and was later ultimately destroyed by Christian zealots in the reign of Theophilus in about 390AD, round about the start of the Dark Ages...

Quite harsh to go all out on christians, because nothing can be confirmed. I checked my sources, and there's three suspects: Romans, Christians and Moslems.

And that Christianity was only aspect what was left? Nonsense! As Bobunf stated, there was Byzantium. And Roman empire as only existing, it brought new things all over western europe, like baths, proper roads and engineering (castles can't be built without engineering, aye?), to name few. Later on there was Holy Roman Empire, led by Barbarossa, though it was short time. (This holy Roman empire consisted of most of current Germany, parts of France and Italy) It is to believed that Barbarossa was inspired by Romans.

About cultural transfer and such things, crusaders did reinvite spa, and therefore hygiene was greatly increased.

[StarLab]

This religion was abused by a family of people

A lot of the kings and queens of Europe, as I understand it, are related.In essence it essentially boiled down to a conflict between a few wealthy families who indoctrinated, successfully, the ENTIRE population of Europe (almost) to fight wars for them, and one excuse they used was a promise in Heaven, as guaranteed by Christianity, if all the peoples of Europe served them loyally. In the Christian, monarchial, Teutonic Europe, Roman achievements and advances in the sciences were held back a millenium because a few families in Europe were competing over LAND, of all things and, as I said before, used Christianity as one of the primary means of subjecting the public masses to their rule. They kept very few aspects of Western Roman Empire life alive.
I apprecieate your input, Bobunf, but all I'm doing was reasoning with dear ol' GH.

[Bobunf]

“Roman achievements and advances in the sciences were held back a millenium because a few families in Europe were competing over LAND”

I think the historical period you’re talking about is from the fall of the Western Roman Empire (say 476 AD) to about 1453 AD, the end of the Hundred Years War and the fall of Constantinople. I also don’t think any historian of the period would interpret the events, the movements, the changes of this near mil-lenium in the way you describe.

In the first place, Roman achievements and advances in science were pretty modest. Roman success was based on political acumen and effectiveness, not technological advance. They were reasonably quick to adopt better technologies from others, but they were not generally innovators in this area.

Secondly, in Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa during this period there were literally thousands of more or less independently operating political units at various points in time. Lots of familial relationships were formed because of the principle of the inheritability of political power, and because of the use of mar-riage as a means of securing political alliances.

But lots of groups were entirely unaffiliated: the Arabs who occupied all of North Africa and Spain. The Arab occupation of parts of Spain lasted for seven centuries, until 1492. North Africa is still Arab. The Vikings occupied large parts of England, Ireland, Normandy, Russia; eventually, as the Normans, even Italy. The Mongols invaded Eastern Europe. And hundreds of other outlying groups affected Europe.

With these huge changes in populations, political, economic and religious systems occurring in a sea of thousands of political entities, a monolithic conspiracy to impose Christianity on the populace so they would work for nothing sounds kind of off the wall.

Europe being invaded by Arabs, Vikings, Mongols and lots of others did not do a lot to preseve Roman institutions--but none of these people were Christian.

The Roman system, for many, many reasons, didn’t work anymore; and the whole population in and around Europe was evolving new approaches to economics, politics and religion. And Christian Byzantium carried Roman and Greek culture (they were Greek speaking), with its own substantial modifications and additions, for nearly a thousand years after the fall of the Western Empire.

[StarLab]

And Christian Byzantium carried Roman and Greek culture (they were Greek speaking), with its own substantial modifications and additions, for nearly a thousand years after the fall of the Western Empire.

Yeah, well, of course THEY WERE EVENTUALLY DESTROYED.

Europe being invaded by Arabs, Vikings, Mongols and lots of others did not do a lot to preseve Roman institutions--but none of these people were Christian.

You're right about one thing - other than Arabic Algebra, no Western culture made much scientific advancement. Over in China, however, they were partying with the latest explosives!

In the first place, Roman achievements and advances in science were pretty modest.

Still, it was the Church - not so much the empire, and see which one survived - that adopted the unquestioned Aristotelian system.

But lots of groups were entirely unaffiliated: the Arabs who occupied all of North Africa and Spain. The Arab occupation of parts of Spain lasted for seven centuries, until 1492. North Africa is still Arab. The Vikings occupied large parts of England, Ireland, Normandy, Russia; eventually, as the Normans, even Italy. The Mongols invaded Eastern Europe. And hundreds of other outlying groups affected Europe.

Well, the vikings and the various n-goths all took christianity, I believe, and the Mongol empire, while pretty dang huge, was also pretty dang short-lived. And, as I said only the Arabs came out with something constructive - algebra - and I'm never going to forgive them for that one.

[antoniseb]

Hey folks,

This is a topic about the history of science, and it is inescapable that there will be some discussion of religeous groups. Please be careful about what you write here. It already reads like some tensions have been raised.

[Bobunf]

"THEY WERE EVENTUALLY DESTROYED"

While Byzantium was eventually conquered, it seem to me that any civilization that lasts for 1123 years, as did Byzantium, has to be viewed as an unqualified success. Precious few have achieved such longevity.

“in China, however, they were partying with the latest explosives”

I think the role of the Chinese with respect explosives and rocketry is highly exaggerated. The Byzantines used Greek Fire very effectively as early as the 4th century.

It’s not known who, when or where the rocket was first developed even though its development occurred entirely within historical times. A Chinese chronicle called T-hung-lian-kang-mu mentions the use of devices, which could have been rockets, in AD 1232 during the Mongol siege of a Chinese city called Kai-fung-fu. This first historical reference to something that could have been a rocket reads like this: “The defenders also had arrows of flying fire. They attached an inflam-mable substance to the arrow. The arrow suddenly flew away in a straight line…” Of course, these things could have been arrows tipped with fire, and not rockets—no pictures.

Rockets may have been used in Poland by the Mongols at the Battle of Legnica in 1241, and by the Arabs in Spain in 1249. We do know, however, that some Europeans had a through understanding of primitive rockets by about 1248; the Englishman, Roger Bacon, wrote a description for producing rockets in his Epistola. Even if rockets were used at Kai-fung-fu, the 1232 date for the first use of rockets seems pretty suspect since it’s hard to believe that the innovation in the 13th century would have diffused to Poland, Spain and England within seventeen years or less.

Historians haven’t been able to determine the date and place for the emergence of this most important invention. We know only that the inventor lived in Eurasia near the beginning of the 13th century. Everything else, except the invention itself, is unknown--nationality, occupation, whether one person, or a group, young or old, motives. But, then, we know failure as a very frequent companion of rocketry.

Bob

[GOURDHEAD]

This topic must be viewed from the broadest of perspectives. "The Civilization" is that which has resulted from the interactions of each of the ethnic variations being cited. Here again evolution is working its magic. We are being forced to "know the truth" and become ever more free.

[aries_4_5_48]

...I think it is human nature to think that 'your' civilization is the best one yet. One of the most provocative statments I have ever heard was stated by Mr. Nisbet: "No single idea has been more important than, perhaps as important as, the idea of progress in Western civilization for nearly 3,000 years."

Technology as progress, is to us, a given. I don't totally disagree, but the type of technology, the application and the rampant technology for the sake of technology I do question. Resources determined where and how technology was directed initially, with little or no thought of the effect, immediate or long term. A phenomena of innovation is that what is invented, often ends up inventing you, as well as taking on a 'life of its own'. Television has many positive aspects. The inventors, in their wildest dream, never envisioned it becoming what it is today. In many cases, a screen with three different colored dots, defines reality and its ability to influence a nation of people is as yet unknown. If Henry Ford could see what he started he would not be able to fathom it. Oil, gas, highways, concrete parking lots, rubber, insurance, 50,000 fatalities a year. And possibly the most detremintal of all, the god-like status that no matter what problems arise, as a result of or independently of, technology will ride in on a big white stallion to save the day. No doubt it can be of tremendous value, it cannot save us from our continued foolish ways......

Technology could have developed in an all most infinite number of directions. Perhaps in the near future it will be applied in a more day-today meaningful way. How advanced can we be if 7 out 10 people on this rock can't read. Close to the same number do not have decent places to live, decent diets, clean water to drink, any type of medical care. I don't have the answers, but I know there is something wrong with this picture, that disparity can only go on so long..... h34r:

"If progress were defined as every human being having at least one bowl of rice a day, a safe place to lay down at night to rest their bodies, and the very basic medical care, it would be that way." R.M. :unsure: