Why things might have taken so long • Hacker News Board

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#61

Post by cf » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 11:14 AM UTC

quadrangle wrote: post #17

About not having invented anything: it's harder to invent something novel today simply because so much has already been invented and knowledge of it is available. Centuries ago, it was easier to think of things to invent (we should be able to fly, to stay under water longer, to copy books faster, to notate music… ). It still took a lot of work to actually realize the invention (which only could be done by people weal…

Inventions are motivated by problems, and we still have lots of them. We sorely need cheap sustainable energy, cheap drugs, artificial organs, more efficient transportation, denser batteries, and that's just stuff off the top of my head. Some of that stuff will entail using existing technology, buy much of it will require new inventions.

Many ideas that seem easy to invent only seem so in retrospect. The article repeatedly points out that inventing rope isn't obvious.

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#62

Post by panic » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 11:22 AM UTC

paulus_magnus2 wrote: post #59

There are tons of new inventions happening every day. People do new things only for themselves. What is impeded is bringing these to mass market due to markets being concentrated in few hands.

Not to mention the huge amount of work it takes to communicate ideas clearly and get people to pay attention to them. Making money from an idea gets people to pay attention, but that only works for some inventions -- lots of great ideas will never turn an immediate profit.

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#63

Post by oldandtired » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 11:24 AM UTC

amelius wrote: post #30

No word on patents as a technology driver?

If you look at the history of patents, I think you might be surprised at just how little patents drive technology forward. I think you will find many, many examples of technology moving forward after patents expire.

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#64

Post by riffraff » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 11:29 AM UTC

danieltillett wrote: post #12

Nothing much (in percentage terms) got invented until the industrial revolution. The question is why the industrial revolution took so long. If you are interested in this topic I highly recommend A Farewell to Alms [0] - warning controversial hypothesis, but it raises lots of interesting topics to think about. 0. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Farewell_to_Alms

how do you quantify the inventions to say "nothing much" was invented?

I have the feeling we underestimate how much stuff has been invented and forgotten.

For example, if you consider architecture the romans used half a dozen kind of opus to build walls, different varieties of arches, cement mixtures, hollow bricks and sunken panels to allow for lighter domes, both rib and barrel vaults, and likely a bunch of other things I never heard about.

A lot of that stuff has been superseded, so we don't really care a about a dozen old cement mixtures, or pure wood techniques, but it doesn't mean they were not invented.

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#65

Post by fastball » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 11:29 AM UTC

haZard_OS wrote: post #52

fastball wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making your own rope is easy with some trial and error. You just take a bunch of stringy things and twist them together to make a stronger stringy thing. The twisting bit takes some finesse, and obviously you won't be making nylon rope with your bare hands, but making a grass rope is child's play. Making a wheel, once you have the concept of a wheel, is pretty damn easy too. If you want a stone wheel, take a large st…

I think that this sort of perspective is (at best) a-historical. I have absolutely no clue how difficult it would be to actually conceptualize "rope" or "wheel" without any of my modern knowledge. The saying that 'hindsight is 20/20' would seem to be particularly true at the scale of early human invention and civilization.

  Good luck with making your own wheel or rope from scratch (i.e. alone and naked in the woods)!

This comment (by my interpretation) implies that the process is difficult. I agree with other comments stating the concept is difficult, but the process for those two inventions is quite manageable - even if you are "alone and naked in the woods".

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#66

Post by nitwit005 » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 11:31 AM UTC

The inventions we care about today are only useful to a certain sort of society, and it took a long time for that to emerge.

Imagine you're in a jungle with your tribe. You basically have plants, animals and rocks with which to make stuff. You live marginally, and people sometimes die from starvation. Your tribe migrates, meaning you have to carry everything you need with you.

If you happened to figure out some metal working, it's probably not worth doing. Your tribe can't set up a mine, and gathering fuel is a huge effort.

Realistically, that sort of thing probably needs an agricultural society that can afford to feed people who aren't farmers.

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#67

Post by yoz-y » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 11:35 AM UTC

fastball wrote: post #50

sametmax wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not inventing. That's innovating. It's very, very different.

Exactly. To illustrate your point: The invention of "rope" is the invention of a manmade object that can create a strong and flexible connection between two objects. Nylon rope is an innovation that progressed from grass rope. It should not be qualified as an "invention" in and of itself, as it is functionally the same as grass rope, it just does the job of rope better.

I'd go further. Nylon as a material was invented and then the current rope tech was improved by it. Innovation stemmed from the fact that we now have a stronger rope and can use it for stuff that was not possible before.

(largely inspired by: http://www.asymco.com/2014/04/16/innoveracy-misunderstanding...)

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#68

Post by 2T1Qka0rEiPr » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 11:36 AM UTC

I occasionally think about certain foods (e.g. diary things such as meringue - or bread - or alcohol etc.), and think, "how the hell did someone come across this". I guess the answer is simply: time!

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#69

Post by danieltillett » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 11:40 AM UTC

knight17 wrote: post #60

danieltillett wrote: post #12

Nothing much (in percentage terms) got invented until the industrial revolution. The question is why the industrial revolution took so long. If you are interested in this topic I highly recommend A Farewell to Alms [0] - warning controversial hypothesis, but it raises lots of interesting topics to think about. 0. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Farewell_to_Alms

>warning controversial hypothesis Prior to 1790, Clark asserts that man faced a Malthusian trap: new technology enabled greater productivity and more food, but was quickly gobbled up by higher populations. In Britain, however, as disease continually killed off poorer members of society, their positions in society were taken over by the sons of the wealthy. In that way, according to Clark, less violent, more literate…

The hypothesis Clark proposes is the least interesting part of his book - it is all the background and data on the industrial revolution that he provides that make it worth reading.

I am on the fence if "the rich outbred the rest" is valid, but I do know from the genetics side that an enormous amount of selection has taken place in the human population over the last few thousand years. We really are very different to the people living 5000 years ago.

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#70

Post by danieltillett » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 11:43 AM UTC

riffraff wrote: post #64

danieltillett wrote: post #12

Nothing much (in percentage terms) got invented until the industrial revolution. The question is why the industrial revolution took so long. If you are interested in this topic I highly recommend A Farewell to Alms [0] - warning controversial hypothesis, but it raises lots of interesting topics to think about. 0. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Farewell_to_Alms

how do you quantify the inventions to say "nothing much" was invented? I have the feeling we underestimate how much stuff has been invented and forgotten. For example, if you consider architecture the romans used half a dozen kind of opus to build walls, different varieties of arches, cement mixtures, hollow bricks and sunken panels to allow for lighter domes, both rib and barrel vaults, and likely a bunch of other t…

By total inventions since the dawn of time. The vast bulk of innovation (in quantity not necessarily quality) has occurred in the last 200 years.