I like to think about technological advantages, despite their frequent downsides, because they're often the wild card that allows people to sidestep the tyranny they're otherwise so likely to be subjected to by the control freaks who gravitate to power. (Why, yes, I am preoccupied with issues of tyranny late. Why do you ask?) The Atlantic ran a survey of their favorite experts to see what consensus they could develop on the 50 most important advances in technology since the wheel. The list is very light on ancient discoveries, with only seven discoveries dating from the B.C. period: alphabetization, Archimedes's screw, cement, the sailboat, the abacus, the nail, and the lever, in descending order of popularity. Wikipedia has a broader list here, arranged chronologically rather than by importance.
I notice that the stirrup, the rotary quern, the horse collar, and the crossbow didn't make the list. Nor did crop rotation, though nitrogen-fixing did. Wasn't there a well-known book about the critical importance of these five inventions? I can't find it now in a net search.
Update: I believe the book I remembered on the subject of the quern, the stirrup, crop rotation, and the horse collar was Lynn White's 1962 "Medieval Technology and Social Change," which I was conflating with William MacNeill's 1984 "The Pursuit of Power," highlighting the crossbow.
11 comments:
The pill is a technological advance?
I'd beg to differ. Go back in time. Remove the pill. The sexual revolution has a whole new direction -- women having babies in a culture that still condemns out-of-wedlock births, Roe v Wade isn't even on the legal horizon, heavy drug usage before and during pregnancy shows up in newborns with serious medical problems, etc. etc.
Liberalism might have taken a distinct turn right at that point in time given that all those baby boomers who are now flaming Alinskyites would have had to grow up and become responsible when they were 20-somethings instead of putting it off until.....?
I'd put iron smelting pretty high up the list; it doesn't even appear on the lists you reference.
I agree that of the 50 things listed, the pill is among the least important. My reasons differ from Dr. Sly's.
I especially disagree with Dr. Sly that without the pill, Roe v Wade wouldn't have happened. I think, that without the pill, support for abortion rights would have been stronger -- especially among married women not opposed to having children.
It's much easier to say that abortion as a contraceptive is no longer needed since the pill is widely and cheaply available -- especially for married women.
The pill is also a great invention because of its use as a fertility drug. More than a few women have successfully used it that way, thus avoiding 'stronger' fertility drugs and the risk of multiples. Its use in the treatment of endometriosis and PCOS is notable too.
I also do not see the connection between the availability of the pill and heavy drug use since using the pill effectively requires consistency and planning -- traits that are not that dominant in the population into heavy drug use.
I was surprised that early metallurgy was left out, too -- not even bronze! Plumping for steel alone is a little myopic, I think.
Another surprise: no mention of the discovery of the chemical basis for inheritance and the deciphering of the genetic code used (with extremely minor variations) by every lifeform on the planet.
All this means is that nobody teaches history, anymore.
Eric Hines
Ah yes, the opinion of experts, chosen by whom and on the basis of what?
This is the same form of thinking that results in Mariah Carey being chosen as the top female vocalist of the 20th century.
This is the same form of thinking that results in Mariah Carey being chosen as the top female vocalist of the 20th century.
Because nobody heard of Patsy Cline. Because nobody teaches history, anymore.
Eric Hines
Well, to be fair, they did seem to try hard to poll a group of people who were well versed in technology. This was not a man on the street affair, or we'd have seen Twitter and Honey Boo Boo in the top five.
"Ah yes, the opinion of experts, chosen by whom and on the basis of what?"
From the article:
"The Atlantic recently assembled a panel of 12 scientists, entrepreneurs, engineers, historians of technology, and others..."
I'd bet good money the 'others' included journalists.
Besides the historians of technology, I wonder how many of those 'experts' would even know what a rotary quern was? I'd never heard the term before, though I was familiar with the device). It's also really difficult to adjust for bias toward the recent, more familiar technological advancements (how does the internet make the list- it's really in it's toddler stage of development, and we really don't know if it's a great good- it offers many small benefits, but top 50 of all time?)
If these are the opinions of 'experts'-
"47. The nail, second millennium b.c.
“Extended lives by enabling people to have shelter.” — Leslie Berlin"
You know, because there was no shelter before nails...
-then I'd like to offer myself to the Atlantic as Super-Genious extrodinaire, expert on all subjects.
At least they recognized Norman Borlaug and the 'Green Revolution'.
#7 is the internal combustion engine, #37 is the steam turbine- but the mill (wind or water) isn't on the list. Which of those was more revolutionary?
The internal combustion engine is three above the steam engine, which was really the first portable engine power, and deserves a place on the list.
I think the problem with these things is that it's done by a journalist sending questionnaires to people and then aligning the answers of the individuals in isolation. I think you'd get much better results by having them in discussion and making arguments about what should be where on the list (if at all).
Agreed.
I look at the exercise as one in evaluating transformative power rather than improvement. Especially for recent achievements in technology, it may be too early to judge whether the change is an improvement, but it's easier to see what transforms. For instance, I think the Internet is truly transformative, almost in the same way that the printing press was, because it hugely changes the ability of people to exchange ideas quickly and globally, and to store, sort, and retrieve information.
I agree with you about water mills and windmills, which probably deserve a higher slot than the internal combustion engine. The step from using steam to turn a motor to using heated air strikes me as more of a modulation than a true transformation, though it's true that a highly concentrated, portable source of fuel has a big impact on the spread of transportation devices throughout a culture. A huge improvement in battery power storage might have a similar effect. Miniaturization of electronic devices is in that same conceptual area: fifty years ago we started learning to make useful things so small that they used only minuscule amounts of power, which made them cheaper and more portable.
I suspect they should have assembled a panel of tech-oriented science fiction writers.
Eric, I am falling to pieces here.
Although I have been in love with Emmylou Harris for a very long time, along with half the other men in America!
Post a Comment