Industrial revolution
Challenge the belief in this as a special time when technology changed.
50,000 years and 360 degrees of human experience
This post is under construction
I apologise for the lack of progress on this post. I started off thinking I understood the issues and it would be a fairly simple thing. However, it has become clear that I do not really understand 'freedom' nor how it has evolved over the millennia. As far as I can see, no one has ever really discussed the history of freedom per se before. The issues are more complex than I realised, and the information I need is not presented in any kind of easily digestible form. As an exercise, I checked the indices of about ten books on 'world history', and only one of them (David Christian's Maps of Time) even mentioned 'freedom' at all. Although you do not see much activity on this blog, I am beavering away behind the scenes, toying with theoretical ideas, and reading or re-reading anything that could help.
As the last glaciation was coming to an end, around G 1500-1550 (13,000 to 11,000 years ago), hunting peoples followed reindeer and other herds into the spaces left by the retreating ice sheets. Some of them camped in the caves of Creswell Crags, in the heart of Britain. Here they made engravings on bone and on the rock walls. The engravings included an ibex, a species not known to have lived in Britain but present further south, which suggests that these ice-age humans wandered freely over the 750 miles between Britain and Spain or southern France. This was especially feasible because sea levels were low and Britain was still joined to the rest of Europe by dry land.
The humans of G 1500 were incredibly free. They lived in a world without governments or police, without national boundaries or customs posts. They could make their camp-sites wherever they liked. Their journeys north and south would have been quite seamless, since the modern countries of Britain, France or Spain of course did not exist in any shape or form. The hunting/foraging lifestyle, living off the land, made it natural to roam far and wide, and there was absolutely nothing to stop them. They had little reason to get attached to any particular place, for their way of life could be practised as easily in one place as another--the only constraint was their knowledge of local plants and animals, and of where to find the vital resources of water and stone.
How things have changed. People in G 2081 (today) are tied to the places where their jobs, homes and possessions are to be found. Planning rules and immigration controls restrict where they can build and make their homes. Their efforts are taxed, and their behaviour is constrained by countless laws, for example obliging them to send their children to school and shutting off most of the countryside as other people's private property. This is not to mention the wholesale deprivation of their liberty if they harm others or offend against the moral code. And the level of restraint seems to be intensifying, as laws multiply and people are subject to ever more comprehensive forms of surveillance.
How and why did we get from the total freedom of the first humans to the many controls and restrictions on freedom of modern times? Has freedom steadily diminished between then and now, or was it, say in the form of serfdom and slavery, even more restricted at certain times and places than it is for us today?
First, we need the definition of freedom. Here it is:
The freedom of a sociological actor is the fraction of the actor's behaviour and experience that is subject to the actor's own choice and decision-making.Notice in this definition the reference to 'experience' as well as 'behaviour'. This captures the notion that people who are exposed to things (such as cold or hunger) they would not choose for themselves are not completely free. The stoic philosophers spoke of the sphere of choice. The thing that is within everybody's sphere of choice is their own mental life. Pretty much everything else, including your own body, is outside the sphere of choice because you are generally powerless to prevent it, say, catching disease, growing tired, or being imprisoned. Nevertheless, some people--the extremely rich, mainly--have more control over at least some of these issues than other people do (e.g. money can buy better doctors and better lawyers). They enjoy a wider sphere of choice with respect to what they experience, and are therefore more free--both intuitively, and as implied by the above definition.
Suppose that each actor has goals with respect to n different issues. Let b be the probability that the goals of a given pair of actors, with respect to a given issue, do not clash. Then the probability of a dispute between two actors, i.e. the probability that they clash over at least one issue, is
p=1-bn
Now suppose that a proportion λ of goals are shared, i.e. a proportion κ = 1-λ of goals are not shared. Only the κn unshared goals can result in a clash, so the probability of a dispute is changed to
p'=1-bκn
Disputes are relatively rare, so we can assume that the probability of a pair of goals clashing is quite small. Hence, b, the probability of a pair of goals not clashing is quite close to 1. Therefore, let us write b as
b=1-ε, where ε is some small number
Then we can rewrite p and p' above as
p=1-(1-ε)n ≈ 1-(1-nε) = nε
p'=1-(1-ε)κn ≈ 1-(1-κnε) = κnε = κp = (1-λ)p
Thus, provided the probability of a dispute is small, then it is true that, if a fraction λ of choices are unfree, the probability of a dispute is reduced to a fraction (1-λ) of its baseline value.
It is conventional to divide prehistory into stone, bronze and iron ages.
In modern times, this scheme is attributed to Christian Jürgensen Thomsen (G 2072-5, 1788-1865). He recognised the pattern while classifying objects for the National Museum of Denmark.
However, the Roman poet Lucretius (Titus Lucretius Carus, c. G 1997-8, c. 99-55 BC), in his scientific poem On the nature of things, wrote that humans first used stone for their tools, then copper and finally iron (Book 5, lines 1281-1296). Lucretius's reference to copper can be taken as shorthand for bronze (which is 90 percent copper).
Before Lucretius, the Greek poet Hesiod (c. G 1970, 750 BC) described five ages, in the following order: gold, silver, bronze, heroes, and iron. Here, the age of heroes stands out as not being named after a metal. It seems to refer to what, in modern reckoning, would be the late bronze age/early iron age, a time of warfare and social breakdown in the Greek peninsula. As for gold and silver, Lucretius also noted that people were using these metals in what for him was the copper age, but he said they preferred copper because it could be worked more easily than the two precious metals.
These three basic ages -- stone, bronze and iron -- have been further divided and refined in various ways.
The stone age, for example, is divided into the old stone age (palaeolithic) and the new stone age (neolithic), while the old stone age is itself divided into the upper, middle and lower palaeolithic (with the upper being the most recent part). Between the stone and bronze ages is recognised to be a copper age, known as the chalcolithic or eneolithic.
Terminology varies between the archaeological traditions of different regions. For example, in African archaeology, the upper/middle/lower palaeolithic tend to be called the late/middle/early stone age. Meanwhile, in Europe there is recognised a mesolithic between the palaeolithic and neolithic; although 'mesolithic' literally translates as 'middle stone age', this is not the same as the African middle stone age, which refers to the middle part of the palaeolithic. In some regions outside Europe, the equivalent of the mesolithic is called the epipalaeolithic.
The history of fully modern humans begins with the upper palaeolithic (or whichever term is preferred in other regions, e.g. late stone age in Africa).
What age are we in today?
We continue to use iron. The contents of the average cutlery drawer, for example, are generally made of iron (or more precisely steel, which is over 95 percent iron and has been the predominant form of iron since antiquity). On the other hand, we have introduced a variety of other materials to replace iron in various applications -- notably plastics, which future archaeologists will no doubt find clogging up excavations dating from our period. So this could be the plastics age. Alternatively, some suggestions pick out other features of our time, labelling this the space age or the information age.
To understand the significance of these 'ages', there are two facts we need to consider:
Labels: Eigenmodes, Phoenix principle
We need a measure of technological sophistication.
Technology changes through history, and technological sophistication is closely related to scale and societal eigenmode.
The internet, for example, makes possible and is made possible by the high scale of the modern world.
where
t = tm + tp + ts +
∑
iti
t = total time resource to produce artefact ( ≡ technological sophistication) tm = time resource for actually making the artefact tp = time resource for preparation ts = time resource for skill acquisition ti = total time resource to produce input i ( ≡ technological sophistication of input i)
To demonstrate this definition of technological sophistication, I will calculate the changing sophistication of cutting tools, from the stone age onwards.*This is merely illustration, not an accurate description of how to make medieval ink.
I cannot provide absolutely accurate values of technological sophistication, especially for the more complex technologies. This would require a vast amount of research. The figures given below are only estimates. My main purpose is to show the definition of technological sophistication in practice.
-- Sophistication estimate --
Factor | Discussion | Time resources (person-seconds) |
Inputs | None | 0 |
Skill acquisition | Ten minutes to pick up the basic technique, though performance would improve with practice | 600 |
Preparation | 5 minutes to select a suitable stone and hammer stone. Any kinds of stone lying around would be suitable, provided they were of reasonable size and shape. | 300 |
Manufacture | 1 minute to knock off a few chips | 60 |
TOTAL | ≈ 1000 |
-- Key innovation --
Specialised ancillary tool (wood etc. hammer); aim of producing a repeatable, pre-conceived form.
-- Sophistication estimate --
Factor | Discussion | Time resources (person-seconds) |
Inputs | The bone/wood/antler flaking tool needs to be sourced and prepared, cutting it to the right length and maybe shaping it a bit. Perhaps twenty minutes. | 1200 |
Skill acquisition | It should be possible to get the technique (from sourcing the stone and flaking tool to the design of the axe) in an hour. | 3600 |
Preparation | A more specific size, shape and type of stone is required. Going to a likely site and selecting a suitable stone might take about half an hour. | 1800 |
Manufacture | More blows are required and more careful attention, in order to get the symmetrical shape. Perhaps 5 minutes. | 300 |
TOTAL | ≈ 7000 |
-- Key innovation --
Extensive preparatory work during which finished item is not apparent.
-- Sophistication estimate --
Factor | Discussion | Time resources (person-seconds) |
Inputs | Again a special tool is used for flaking. To prepare it: twenty minutes. | 1200 |
Skill acquisition | A period of practising more basic techniques would be needed to develop the necessary understanding of stone's characteristics. One 8-hour day. | 28,800 |
Preparation | Special types of stone, similar to Mode 2, would be required. Fetching time: 1 hour | 3600 |
Manufacture | A long period of shaping the stone is required before striking off the final product: 10 minutes | 600 |
TOTAL | ≈ 35,000 |
-- Key innovation --
Preparatory work to produce savings downstream as many blades can be mass-produced from one core; creation of tools to make tools (e.g. burin is used for making holes in bone/ivory to produce needles).
-- Sophistication estimate --
Factor | Discussion | Time resources (person-seconds) |
Inputs | Again a specialist hammer: twenty minutes | 1200 |
Skill acquisition | Much practice is needed for genuine competence: two 8-hour days | 57,600 |
Preparation | Greater care is needed in selecting the best stone (flint or similar). This might take a day (8 hours) to fetch. In reality, stone might be traded so that people would not have to find it themselves, but this is the sort of efficiency saving we ignore in the calculation of technological sophistication | 28,800 |
Manufacture | The preparation of the core requires 250 blows and the blade is further refined after being struck: 25 minutes | 1500 |
TOTAL | ≈ 90,000 |
-- Key innovation --
Complex composite tools, themselves part of compound systems (e.g. bow and arrow).
-- Sophistication estimate --
Factor | Discussion | Time resources (person-seconds) |
Inputs | The inputs are finished stone blades (the microliths). I will assume these have the technological sophistication calculated above for Mode 4 (90,000). Another input is string, for which I will conservatively assume a technological sophistication of 8 hours | 118,800 |
Skill acquisition | Training is needed in sourcing resin, carving a stick to the right size and shape, and hafting the microliths to it. 8 hours | 28,800 |
Preparation | Obtaining the resin and a suitable stick (the string and microliths are already available, having just been made). Half an hour. | 1800 |
Manufacture | Carving the stick and attaching the microliths. Half an hour. | 1800 |
TOTAL | ≈ 150,000 |
-- Key innovation --
Form determined by function rather than by properties of underlying material.
-- Sophistication estimate --
Factor | Discussion | Time resources (person-seconds) |
Inputs | A suitable block of stone would need to be prepared as a grinding platform (8 hours). Animal hide would need to be obtained (by hunting) and prepared for binding the axe in a tool (4 hours). An initial set of stone tools would be needed for the carving and cutting tasks associated with these and subsequent activities (assume sophistication of Mode 4 tools: 90,000 person-secs). | 133,200 |
Skill acquisition | The basic grinding/polishing technique could be picked up quite easily, although to create sharp, smooth and symmetrical axes would require longer practice. 2 hours | 7200 |
Preparation | The hide is assumed available. Other parts to be sourced and fetched are: the stone to be polished, resin for gluing it in the handle, the handle itself, and one or more abrasives (sand) to be used in polishing. Total: 1.5 hours | 5400 |
Manufacture | The stone would be roughed out by chipping then polished by rubbing against the platform, using successively finer abrasives to get the final smooth surface (1 day). It would then be mounted in the handle (1 hour). | 32,400 |
TOTAL | ≈ 180,000 |
-- Key innovation --
Transformation of raw material (ore) whose properties are not those of the finished product.
-- Sophistication estimate --
Factor | Discussion | Time resources (person-seconds) |
Inputs | One input is the copper ore. This requires developing some knowledge of geology (4 hours), and then the actual location and extraction of the ore (8 hours). A set of stone tools would be needed for this (assume Mode 4: 90,000 person-secs). There is also a need for a pottery crucible and charcoal for the fire: assume 8 hours to make these. | 162,000 |
Skill acquisition | It is necessary to understand the construction of a cast and the melting and pouring of the copper. 12 hours. | 43,200 |
Preparation | The copper must first be produced from the copper ore. 8 hours. | 28,800 |
Manufacture | A mould has to be made, then the copper poured. After the copper is removed from the mould, it requires tidying up and polishing. For this: 12 hours. Finally, the object needs to be mounted in a suitable manner: 4 hours. | 57,600 |
TOTAL | ≈ 290,000 |
-- Key innovation --
Combination of raw materials to produce substance not found in nature.
-- Sophistication estimate --
Factor | Discussion | Time resources (person-seconds) |
Inputs | For the ores, geology knowledge is required - more than for copper as there are now two metals involved, so 6 hours. For locating and mining the ores, two 8-hour days. Again there is a need for a set of stone tools (assume Mode 4: 90,000 person-secs), and for a pottery crucible and charcoal for the fire (8 hours). | 198,000 |
Skill acquisition | Similar skills are needed as for copper, but now two metals are involved. Assume 50 percent more effort: 18 hours. | 64,800 |
Preparation | The metals need to be separately refined from their ores: 12 hours | 43,200 |
Manufacture | The actual melting and pouring of the bronze takes relatively little time, but there is much work first in creating the mould into which the metal will be poured and then in cleaning up and polishing the object after it has been removed from the mould. For this, two 8-hour days. Finally the object needs to be mounted in a suitably carved handle: 4 hours. | 72,000 |
TOTAL | ≈ 380,000 |
-- Key innovation --
Iron-making was perhaps not as revolutionary as some earlier transitions between lithic modes or the first use of metals, but the development of the high-temperature furnace was a breakthrough.
-- Sophistication estimate --
Factor | Discussion | Time resources (seconds) |
Inputs | A knowledge of geology is required: 4 hours. To obtain the ore (more widely available than copper ore): 4 hours. Also required are a crucible and high temperature furnace, along with charcoal fuel: two 8-hour days. Tools are needed to mine the ore and construct the furnace, for which assume a bronze package: 350,000 person-secs. | 436400 |
Skill acquisition | The necessary skills include producing the high temperatures for melting iron, handling the molten metal, and understanding how carbon or other ingredients affect the metal's properties: 20 hours. | 72,000 |
Preparation | The iron has to be smelted from its ore: 12 hours. | 43,200 |
Manufacture | The work involves creating a mould, melting the iron, and polishing the cast object into a finished product: 2 days. Finally, it has to be mounted: 4 hours. | 72,000 |
TOTAL | ≈ 625,000 |
Technology | Sophistication | Appearance |
Mode 1 | 1000 | Pre-G 1 |
Mode 2 | 7000 | Pre-G 1 |
Mode 3 | 35,000 | Pre-G 1 |
Mode 4 | 90,000 | G 1 |
Mode 5 | 150,000 | G 500 |
Neolithic | 180,000 | G 1600 |
Copper | 290,000 | G 1760 |
Bronze | 380,000 | G 1860 |
Iron | 625,000 | G 1920 |
Labels: Development
In Works and Days, the ancient Greek poet Hesiod wrote that history began with a golden age, which was followed by a silver age, a bronze age, and finally the miserable iron age of his own time. He recognised that technological progress had occurred, but nevertheless believed that humanity's finest times lay in the past.
James Lovelock has called this grandfather's law, the belief that the old days were the best.
Yet there may be more at stake here than simple prejudice.
Suppose the world's population were asked to choose just one iconic building to stand for the whole of human architectural achievement. What would they vote for? The Taj Mahal, the Eiffel Tower, the US Capitol, The Forbidden City, the Parthenon, the Coliseum?
I think there is a good chance, when all is said and done, that they might settle on the Great Pyramid of Cheops. It is only within the last century that significantly taller buildings have appeared, and, while these may be more sophisticated than the Great Pyramid, they do not have its simplicity, nor are they likely to last as long.
That the Pyramid of Cheops should remain one of the world's largest and most iconic structures might seem extraordinary, considering it was built by people who were still using stone tools, but it illustrates a general principle: in many areas of human endeavour, first efforts are often the best.
The Apollo 11 landing, for example, will probably stand for all time as a highpoint of space exploration. People will one day return to the moon, and will eventually reach other planets and the stars beyond, and they will use technologies of unimaginably greater sophistication than those of Apollo. Yet whatever they do, the Apollo achievement will in some ways never be equalled -- going from a standing start to landing a series of crews on the moon within the decade, in the most primitive craft, and then returning them to earth without a single fatality.
Michael Collins, the Apollo 11 team member who remained in orbit while Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the moon, has revealed that his biggest fear was that the lunar module ascent stage, which had never previously been tested under lunar conditions, would fail to fire, and he would have to return to earth alone. President Nixon had a speech prepared for this eventuality, in which he would have said that while Armstrong and Aldrin knew there was no hope of rescue they also knew their sacrifice would not be in vain. The speech was never needed, for the ascent stage performed flawlessly, and the mission was in every respect a triumph.
Labels: Long-term history
Seneca (the Younger, c. 4 BC - AD 65)
All the human race, whatever it is and whatever will be, is condemned to death. All the cities that have ever held dominion over the world, and that have been the great decorations of empires not their own, someday people will ask where they were. And they will be destroyed by various types of destruction: wars will ruin some, idleness and the kind of peace turned to sloth will consume others, and by luxury, a deadly thing to people with great wealth. All these fertile plains will be blotted out of sight by a sudden overflowing of the sea, or the slippage of the settling earth will sweep them suddenly into the abyss.
(Letters #71)