Exponential growth, thats about all there is to it. Advancing from clacking rocks to hunting deer is actually already a huge advancement.
Those 190k years in caves however werent non-advancing. A lot of advancements happened over those years.
Fires, wheels, knot tying, ceramics, pottery, grains, hunting, animal husbandry, medicine, language, art, music, rope...
Also, 10k years is after we gained writing of various forms to store information.
Keep in mind thats at the stage of shit like egypt, the great pyramids, etc. We were waaaaay beyond "cavemen" at that point. We already had trade routes, cities, nations, countless languages, doctors, etc.
The big issue was before that point, all our forms of storing information were just not able to stand the test of time very well, is all. We stopped being "cavemen" way before that mark though.
Around 10k years before us, we developed from hunter-gatherer cavemen to neolithic city builders with irrigated farms, organized religion and and a feudal society in like 1000 years. That is also pretty quick. Sure, pyramids took a bit longer. But while pyramids are pretty damn impressive, no pyramids does not mean an "uncivilized" society.
Writing isn't just storing information. It's transmitting it across much greater distances, more times, with much less corruption.
Oral transmission is better than nothing, but written transmission inherently has better reach. Then the printing press allowing for mass reproduction of transmission, then the internet for rapid, much more democratized transmission. It's the spread of ideas so they can intermingle that's the super-accelerator.
•
"something doesn't add up"
yes it does. that's exactly what it is you're describing. all of it adding up. as always people struggle with exponential growth because it's not very intuitive.
my favorite way to demonstrate the unintuitive nature of exponential growth is this question:
there's a pond, and a lily pad on it. the number of lily pads double every day on the pond. so on day 1 there's one, day 2 there's two, and on day 3 there's four... etc.
if it takes 120 days for the pond to get completely covered in lily pads, what day was only half of it covered?
!the answer is 119.!<
The standard story is "One Grain of Rice" https://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/EMT668/EMAT6680.F99/Martin/instructional%20unit/day4.exponential/excel/grainofrice.html
I recognized that this user is willing to share information and provided the standard teaching method on exponential growth; in the event they need to explain it again. I suppose critical thinking and social skills are characteristics of bots these days...
•
I have no idea why that person would accuse you of being a bot. You replied with a very relevant thing. I’m confounded.
Most of the people accusing others of being bots don't seem to have a good grasp of context, like a bot.
Wait a minute.
Am I a bot?
Excellent.
This makes my fervent desire to end the human race much easier on the conscience.
You failed to understand contextual nuance and differences between the stories. You just referenced whatever the top indexed result was given as many keywords as possible.
Their story is about the punchline that half the pond will be covered the day before the last. The rice story is that the final result is so large that it cannot be reached.
•
You’ve deleted your response to me but it’s still in my inbox… and it’s hilariously pretentious and pedantic. I understand why you’ve deleted it.
Yeah I was trying to reply to the higher level above yours. Your butt pain was just a casualty.
I mean sure it would? That's rhe whole point is that exponential growth quickly reaches massive quantities. Like literally after 120 days I doubt that many lilypads would fit on earth.
I’m not sure what lily pads so I went with the largest which have around 7.069m^2^ of surface area or 0.0000007069km^2^ surface area.
Earth has a surface area of 510,064,472km^2^
After 120 days of doubling we have
6.64614x10^35^ * 7.069x10^-6^ = 4.6982Ex10^30^
So you are correct but it’s also around 23x the surface area of the sun.
I think the lilypads might need to be smaller than an atomic nucleus? Someone check my math. But still larger than a Planck length, so it is fine.
•
they wouldn't, but it's not a real pond, and not real lily pads. i was going to say 20 but went for 120 to make the ratio more extreme, not to make it realistic.
The pond is the Pacific Ocean.
Let's see...2^120 is 1.329•10^36 lily pads. Say 15cm diameter for a lily pad, that's got an area of 177cm^2. That's 10.3•10^38 cm^2.
The surface area of the Pacific Ocean is only 1.652•10^18 cm^2.
We're boned.
I don't disagree with your explanation of exponential growth or how it does answer for the speed at which we went from, say the magnifying glass to the hubble space telescope.
However, the exponential growth alone model does have a floor: it presumes that there was some kind of push, drive or want for progress. Like, as if there was a destination we're supposed to end up at and its just a case of how long it took to get there. It excludes the idea that people might not have wanted to.
People didn't want to toil all day in someone else's farm. In smaller numbers, on good land, people didn't have to do very much to get the food they needed. Its only when farming became developed and consistent enough that those living there had the numbers to go kill the people who lived on the good land.
Once we'd been, for all intense and purpose, domesticated by grain, "progress" was inevitable.
Another example would be the industrial revolution. People ask why it was so much faster here in the UK than France. It wasn't because of a desire for progress. Its that French people had a natural aversion to being worked for 12 hours a day in hell-like factories and workhouses. I mean, British people did too but they had mostly just been kicked off the common land they had lived on for centuries. So, they had no other place to go and begging and not having a job for more than three days was made illegal, punishable by being sent to to workhouses. At one points, they had more British soldiers fighting the riots at home than they had fighting napoleon.
•
my comment referred to knowledge more than anything. the more you know, the more you have to go from to learn new things. incredibly simplistic summary for very complex phenomena, but I wasn't going to go through the entire human history. there are breaking points and regression stages, but generally speaking it makes sense that the more you progress, the faster you can progress further. you have more tools.
Not entirely true, England just had a shit ton of trade from its colonies, and better trade led to more intense interconnection, and wealth which in the developing industrial method of production led to an explosion of capital. It was to the point the Rhodes (Rhodesia the British colony was named after him) called expansion an existential question for England, because the explosion of capital had to go somewhere. What’s nuts about capital is that it produces more capital using ever more advanced industries and methods of production. England with massive markets and capital available was able to do this to an insane degree. But still, France is something like the third wealthiest nation after US and England, so they did not do too bad for themselves, and their capital still had a field day in Africa. Highly recommend reading Marx or Lenin on imperialism, it’s legit the whole Marxist thesis how modern industry came about, and for Marx, he literally wrote Capital based on data in England. It’s absolutely fascinating how society and the economy entered a seismic shift with the advent of Captialism
None of that explains the difference in time it took for each country to industrialise. For it to, would be to claim it was capitalism itself that did so, meaning the claim is that it wouldn't have happened were it not for capitalism which wouldn't be right.
Thanks but I've read das kapital too and, you'll find on reflection, that, far from refuting what i said, it corroborates it fully. In particular, the chapters where he talks about the acts of enclosure. Around chapter 26 or 27, if I remember correctly.
Tried to find it but could not. Also the level of commerce absolutely had to do with how rapidly England industrialized, even if it was not the only factor. The massive accumulation of wealth and concentration of productive forces in cities was made by and made possible the advent of industrialization. Also it would not be wrong to say that capitalism caused itself, it was a continuous development from feudalism to capitalism, until it wasn’t and had to be sorted out by capitalism overthrowing the previous social order. So even if the populations of each country were different, the core idea that capital shapes the social relations still holds true, regardless of what may have come before, capitalism at a certain point had to revolutionize social relations. Perhaps if you want to argue, you could say the French were more radical in resisting capitalism (the monarchy, then the working class), maybe. But the working class could only fight capitalism once capitalism had developed to the point of creating a working class.
I'm not sure where you looked. Its one of the main points of chapter 27.
I never said that wealth didn't contribute to it. I said the difference in wealth doesn't come close to explaining the difference in the length of time it took to industrialise.
It would be flat out wrong to claim that capitalism caused itself, in much the same way that I can't claim to have given birth to myself. Even if we can get past the contradiction in terms, it developed out of merchantilism, not feudalism.
My whole point, since the off, has been that the difference was the ability of French people to resist industrialisation and not wealth. Again, I'm not sure how you missed that.
But the working class could only fight capitalism once capitalism had developed to the point of creating a working class.
Are you trying to tell me that all the people at the bottom of the social order who didn't like how it was at the time didn't exist until Marx wrote them into being?
It's exponential. The gap between 200k years ago and 10k years ago is pretty similar to the gap between 20k years ago and 1k years ago, or the difference between 2k years ago and 100 years ago. On a logarithmic scale, same distance, roughly the same delta in terms of the technology available
Which is why I think it's wild people want to throw on the brakes now that we're affecting the entire earth. I mean I understand that it seems like we've ended up in a bad spot ecologically if you only take the last 100 years into account. But why stop right on the most toxic version of humanity? Let's push forward to our solarpunk future as soon as possible.
That most people spend most of their time passively reading celebrity news on tiny black rectangle tells you everything you need to know about the rate of human progress.
It was mostly agriculture and dense human settlements, I think. Once you have someone farming enough food for themself plus someone else, that "someone else" can do something else to progress technology. Sometimes with things that allow that farmer to produce enough food for three people, then five, so goes on.
guess what happens next
more food and more people who came to buy the food now you need people to help make the food and keep track of the sales and now you need houses for people to live in and people to make the houses, and now there's more people and they invent things, which makes things better and more people come and there's more farming and more people to make more things for more people and now there's business, money, writing, laws, power
Right, the history of human progress is literally the history of human cooperation. As the scale of human cooperation has expanded so has the scope of the problems we can solve.
We are actually quite close to having something resembling global consensus on a bunch of issues. It is only a handful of notable holdout states which are standing in the way of humanity effectively being able to draw down arms and focus on bigger issues.
The answer is probably language. Before advanced language was developed, there wasn't a good way to pass along any knowledge that was gained by an individual.
Language probably predates Homo Sapiens as our close relatives such as Homo Neandertalensis and Homo Denisova also had adaptations for articulated speech.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-021-01391-6
Beside, populations today that have never had agriculture or traits we associate with civilization and who live secluded, like the North Sentinelese, all have languages.
I think it's best explained by environmental factors, rather than something interior to humanity. After all, most of human's existence was during the Pleistocene, but all recorded history is within the Holocene (except now we're entering the Anthropocene). Many modern studies account for the climate shifts to explain the development of agriculture:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1113931109
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0959683611409775
Most traits we associate with civilization are linked to agriculture and sedentary.
I thought it was because proper farming.
Like being able to support larger groups of people, where individuals could specialize in other things than hunting, gathering and whatever else was keeping the early humans busy.
On the other hand I've heard we've been possibly farming long before 10,000 BCE.
Language is much older than just 10k years. There's a few reasons to think that language might have developed with erectus, which could make language 10x older than the 'human specie', according to anon.
Usually the distinction is between "advanced communication" which some animals display, and "language", which only humans have.
Whether you want to call it language or advanced language, what we do today is way older than 10k years. There are stories that have been dated to 100k and if the arguments about erectus are correct, then what you call advanced language is probably 2m+ years old.
As IoaExMachina correctly highlighted, language predates those 10k years.
For reference, Proto-Afro-Asiatic (ancestor of Egyptian, all Semitic languages, Amazigh, plus a lot others) is believed to have been spoken 12k~18k years ago. So... like, it was already old back then, and yet it has modern descendants.
And the role of language is probably not just communication, it's also to formalise thought. It's easier to think with language than without it, and you can reach more reliable conclusions.
The answer is agriculture, which lowered the standard of living and health of the individual, but sustained more people, allowed for specialization, permanent settlement and building large structures.
•
language => written down language => widespread literacy => affordable information (printing press) => internet => hypertext websites => search engines.
we went from struggeling to keep our knowledge arround to having access to almost the entire sum of human knowledge in a mostly convenient manner.
search engines(accessible with giant, wired computers, slow as fuck) => search engines(often times literally more accesible than water. enshittified as hell)
The Pleistocene (2,580,000 - 11,700 years ago) was fucking crazy cold and had a hella unstable climate. Not a nice predictable environment.
That's the biggest reason why ~12,000 years ago was when modern humans really started taking off. The entire planet's climate changed in a way that made agriculture possible, and humans are really damn good at figuring out agriculture when we're able to
A lot of the comments are talking about writing being the game changer but it took generations of selective breeding crops and livestock to make them viable for domestication. We haven't found any evidence of domestication prior to about 12k years ago in archeology or genetics. There were many civilizations who built large cities and never needed a writing system.
I think it was A Collection Of Unmitigated Pedantry that pointed out, some of the oldest cities with any surviving architecture had stone walls ten feet thick. You don't start with ten-foot-thick walls. You work your way up to that.
A lot of what should be civilized history is just fuckin' gone.
you know how sometimes you're trying to solve a puzzle but you're stuck at the very beginning? You can spend hours looking at the puzzle and get nowhere. But then you spot it! the one step or the one logical conclusion you needed to advance, and you start blasting through the puzzle
it's that
•
It's mostly population density and specialization. You don't have time to think when you're doing everything yourself. The biggest advances come when we're able to fund the best and brightest to basically do nothing but think.
After getting into writing some hard science fiction futurism, I find it much more interesting that we have so very little perspective about where we exist within the present. Our technology is crap, we're poor as fuck, there is enormous wealth that dwarfs all the wealth on Earth and a whole lot of it is quite accessible if we tried, while we haven't even scratched the surface of the technology available within biology. Our medicine and healthcare practices are primarily based on anecdotal or correlative nonsense, low sigma test results, and cherry picked terrible science. Many of us here, myself included, are outliers that the present healthcare system fails to help. We have it better than some people in history, but worse than others. It feels like our culture has this mindset like we are the end game; no vision of the future. The only stories told are those of dystopianism. We should change that.
Yes, people forget that a bit over a hundred years ago, there were less than a billion people on the planet.
You're so right about healthcare. The only people who have faith in the healthcare industry have clearly never interacted with it. From the politicized researchers to the patient-facing morons it's all mostly shit all the way down.
But isn't that what genres like cyberpunk do? Technological progress (A(G)I, biotech, body modifications, true VR, you name it), but society is even shittier than now? Sure, it is to some degree a cautious tale, but I feel there are quite a lot of near-future hard-ish scifi visions around
What we need is near-future hard-ish sci-fi visions that view the world positively or at least as capable of change. A lot more Star Trek TNG than expanse.
Hey man, there are plenty of animals on this planet that have been around longer than human beings, and I don't see any of them writing an award winning Netflix limited series...
They found the perfect design and just swim all day murdering instead of paying bills by doing bullshit for decades while wearing pants. Sharks and crocodiles have had it all figured out for hundreds of millions of years.
See other greentext about some 200-year-old salamander.
"I wonder what he thinks about."
"Nutrients."
•
Sharks appeared around the same time (-200MY) the solar system was last on this side of the galaxy. Crocodiles evolved when the solar system was almost (-95MY) on the other side of the galaxy. Dinosaurs ruled for 3/4 (179MY) of an entire orbit.
The solar system orbits the galaxy once every 250MY.
That's. Wack.
There was a period of 60MY where trees just kinda fell over and laid there because nothing had evolved to eat them.
Yep. For most of human history technological progress amounted to getting a little bit better at smashing slightly sharper rocks over the course of hundreds of years.
This is probably incorrect. Rocks preserve in the archaeological record so that's what we have the most evidence for.
Increasingly sophisticated knowledge of woodworking, textile science, plant and animal biology, mathematics and astronomy were no doubt developing alongside knapping techniques, that stuff just doesn't preserve well.
Yeah well. We kind of had to deal with bears the size of a fucking house for a while. At least until we wiped out their main food source. And rival hominids with at least spears.
•
A friend told me they were surprisingly fast, and you really wanted to stay away from big holes in the ground.
My own line of reasoning is that the speed of progress of technological advancement is dependent on the amount of people who can dedicate their lives to doing stuff other than trying to gather enough food and shelter to survive. So for the longest of times basically everyone had to just try to survive and maybe have an idea or two every now and then. Low human population and no-one able to dedicate themselves to innovation means extremely low innovation rate. But those rare times something really useful was developed and passed on to the next generation led to freeing more people to be able to dedicate themselves to innovation and thus increasing the amount of people one human can support with their work effort. This is a positive feedback loop so it has exponentially grown to today where one person's work can support multiple people making theoretically most of humanity free to advance technology.
Your don't need to only rely on reason for that.
It's quite obvious it's true when looking at history.
"Idle hands are the devil's playthings" is a really stupid saying, unless one truly does think of the devil as the Lightbringer.
Honestly the more one reads into history, the more one realises just how progress stifling Christianity has been. (Or Abrahamic monotheism in the first place.)
When the people around modern day Greece started having extra fish and wine so some of the ppl could take it easy and just chilax, they basically came up with the central ideas that are still central to our modern society. Democracy, morality, freedom, etc.
When I think about how long it took me to realize that you're supposed to pour tetra packs with the spout on top, I find no fault in pre modern man