Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's special about the printing press is that it makes copying cheap; the comparable Roman technology was slavery, which makes labor cheap. (In the short term.)
That makes it even more remarkable, really, because the investment required to avoid automation is incredible. You need schools to prepare slaves as teachers (taught by slaves, of course) to teach child slaves to read and write and whatever specialist skills required by scribes. You need schools to teach the kids to read and you need slaves to produce sufficient excess food to support all the other slaves. And at the…
Why didn't the Romans have hot air balloons?
61–70 of 134 posts
Re: Why didn't the Romans have hot air balloons?
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
That makes it even more remarkable, really, because the investment required to avoid automation is incredible. You need schools to prepare slaves as teachers (taught by slaves, of course) to teach child slaves to read and write and whatever specialist skills required by scribes. You need schools to teach the kids to read and you need slaves to produce sufficient excess food to support all the other slaves. And at the…
The vast majority of Roman slaves were miserable, illiterate war captives, and generations of their offspring, working large scale farms in Italy. The instability from Roman slavery actually came from the masses of displaced Roman yeoman farmers, who could not compete with the slave agribusinesses. This was a considerable concern in ancient Rome, for cultural reasons and also because these small farmers formed the ba…
Edit: to clarify, slaves are necessary to export culture because someone has to transcribe all of the books and laws etc.
Re: Why didn't the Romans have hot air balloons?
#63"Such rapid and direct application of biomedical advances to humans is now inconceivable, not only in the US, but virtually anywhere in the world." This is true, but for one very simple reason: at the time of these inventions, there was no other option . If someone needed a heart operation that required stopping the heart, they would die. If someone needed dialysis after kidney failure, they died. Rapid applications…
Re: Why didn't the Romans have hot air balloons?
#64In hindsight, it seems clear that if humanity had decided in 1939 to colonize space, instead of expending ~$17 trillion and ~74 million human lives on war and destruction, we would have reached the moon in a robust and durable way by no later than the mid-1950s He kinda gives away the answer to this earlier in the article, while explaining why the cool edge-case technologies the Romans had never took off: the truth i…
You could argue that a great deal of the technological advancement of the later 20th century is a direct result of the CIA's paranoia and inability to correctly assess the real capabilities of the USSR (and the attendant fervor and fear of the public, which enabled the vast level of government expenditure on the Space Program). A content and secure populace would surely have preferred the money to have been spent els…
Re: Why didn't the Romans have hot air balloons?
#65The Greeks and Romans were societies of slavery, with very little need to industrial innovation.
The sawmill (like at Hierapolis), grainmill, shipmill, cranks and connecting rods, roman cranes, the first book (codex) had many advantanges over scrolls...
The first recorded (buttress) dams, cements, camel harnesses, foot-powered looms, force pumps, glass blowing, hydraulic mining, hushing (flood mining), reaper, lateen sails.
Almost all of these were not toys; they filled a very real need.
Re: Why didn't the Romans have hot air balloons?
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
> building a dirty bomb out of it won't really work (as a matter a fact, neither making one out of Pu-239). Plutonium is chemically extremely toxic. Even throwing some powdered plutonium in air somewhere would cause serious harm. Edit : In fact it's not :)
Thats actually an urban legend (though one thats often repeated in the media). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#Toxicity http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/pl... The radiological toxicity of plutonium is _way_ higher than the chemical toxicity.
Re: Why didn't the Romans have hot air balloons?
#67There's a somewhat negative cast towards the end of this article where the author discusses "the fundamental inability of most humans to handle such technology responsibly" and how "psychosocial factors" retard progress. And then you have some dire, terminal outlook for humanity. This reads like correspondence bias to me. At first, it seemed contradictory to the first paragraphs of the article, which seemed to be lea…
Re: Why didn't the Romans have hot air balloons?
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
The vast majority of Roman slaves were miserable, illiterate war captives, and generations of their offspring, working large scale farms in Italy. The instability from Roman slavery actually came from the masses of displaced Roman yeoman farmers, who could not compete with the slave agribusinesses. This was a considerable concern in ancient Rome, for cultural reasons and also because these small farmers formed the ba…
Right, and to be clear, I am addressing the scenario from the Roman perspective, not because I approve of it or whatever. Additionally, I am highlighting the notion that in order to mass produce written law and the other things necessary to successfully export a culture on massive scale over large distances, you actually do need a large population of literate slaves, which, if you're going to have slaves, is the last…
My reading of the history is that the literate Roman slaves more-or-less bought in to the system-- indeed, for the literate slave, there were paths to freedom, and some of the most trusted imperial advisers were freedmen. While slave uprisings were always a huge concern in Rome, they played no part in the eventual downfall of Rome, and the most remembered one-- Spartacus-- was of the illiterate war captive type of slave.
Re: Why didn't the Romans have hot air balloons?
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you saying that war increases technological growth? That's crappy pop-history that's largely been discredited. Competition invites advancement, blowing up your competitors does nothing.
So what you're saying that intense competition between national armies is not the kind of competition that humans are willing to stake almost anything and commit endless resources on? War itself may not increase technological growth. But preparations for war certainly do. And please show me another competition that has yielded lets say 50% of technological advances that various arms races have? Sadly when human devel…
Re: Why didn't the Romans have hot air balloons?
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thats actually an urban legend (though one thats often repeated in the media). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#Toxicity http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/pl... The radiological toxicity of plutonium is _way_ higher than the chemical toxicity.
I stand corrected. In fact, I just checked and it seems like even Uranium isn't actually extremely toxic.
EDIT: Edited for horrible grammar caused by rewriting something without proofreading after.