4 ms·

The argument is for a trend far beyond that; that perhaps those cycles do matter but there is a 700 year trend in one direction. Even the globalism to national

The argument is for a trend far beyond that; that perhaps those cycles do matter but there is a 700 year trend in one direction. Even the globalism to nationalism trends that drove both world wars (after common wisdom thought them impossible since economies were too linked) is really a small factor, at least in the analysis of the article. I don't even think that your analysis is correct in a broader context. The fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of manoralism (and constant conflict in Europe) was not innovation and didn't particularly drive it. The staunch nationalism of the Chinese empire didn't drive innovation (though it did mean less conflict). WWII may have held in it (or pushed forward) the seeds of much great innovation - rocket science, computing, plastics, antibiotics, nuclear science, etc. But what innovation would have occurred without it? What would the lives lost have contributed? I don't think it's fair to say that rapid change is only possible in such an environment of conflict. Great advances occurred in the interwar years, too.

adventured 8y ago
It's not just the active wars of nationalism that unleash waves of invention, it's the cultural atmosphere, the lingering of such over all nations. At high levels of nationalism you can feel the tension in the air across the globe, it alters how people behave and how they think. Nations stop cooperating as much, and start competing with each other in an aggressive manner more. That's the core of what spurs the increased invention, rather than war specifically. War plausibly can prompt and enable a short, unsustainable, burst of heightened levels of invention. WW2, as an atmospheric, a cultural change agent, didn't just go away when WW2 ended. It's reasonable to consider that the impact it had on people would last for decades. For the generation or two that primarily lived it, it permanently changed how they think and view the world. Most of the great advances we've enjoyed post WW2, were sparked in the 20 or 30 years after WW2. Globalism spread those advances and refined them; which is what we've been mostly doing since the collapse of the USSR in the early 1980s after oil imploded. This cycle of globalism began somewhere between the late 1970s and mid 1980s. edit: to add to my opinion here - I view the invention that occurs under nationalism vs globalism, as tall spikes vs low gentle waves. Invention doesn't cease under globalism, the nature of it changes. Nationalism will deliver intense blunt trauma invention, that may be impossible under other circumstances and or require a far longer timeline. If it's 1960-1965 and you tell the US Government they can acquire an immense leg up on the USSR by plowing $10 billion into some focused great technological leap forward attempt, they're probably going to do it. That's the application of blunt trauma to technological progress. The difference between: we should consider doing XYZ thing, versus: we must do XYZ thing and do it now. Would the modern superpower version of the US Government - eg in ~1994-2004 at the height of its superpower status vs other nations - do projects like that? I'm skeptical the solitary superpower version of the US would create the Internet or go to the moon. In the next 20 years, in heightened nationalistic competition with China, I think you're going to see a revival of that spirit.

adventured 8y ago

It's not just the active wars of nationalism that unleash waves of invention, it's the cultural atmosphere, the lingering of such over all nations. At high levels of nationalism you can feel the tension in the air across the globe, it alters how people behave and how they think. Nations stop cooperating as much, and start competing with each other in an aggressive manner more. That's the core of what spurs the increased invention, rather than war specifically. War plausibly can prompt and enable a short, unsustainable, burst of heightened levels of invention. WW2, as an atmospheric, a cultural change agent, didn't just go away when WW2 ended. It's reasonable to consider that the impact it had on people would last for decades. For the generation or two that primarily lived it, it permanently changed how they think and view the world. Most of the great advances we've enjoyed post WW2, were sparked in the 20 or 30 years after WW2. Globalism spread those advances and refined them; which is what we've been mostly doing since the collapse of the USSR in the early 1980s after oil imploded. This cycle of globalism began somewhere between the late 1970s and mid 1980s. edit: to add to my opinion here - I view the invention that occurs under nationalism vs globalism, as tall spikes vs low gentle waves. Invention doesn't cease under globalism, the nature of it changes. Nationalism will deliver intense blunt trauma invention, that may be impossible under other circumstances and or require a far longer timeline. If it's 1960-1965 and you tell the US Government they can acquire an immense leg up on the USSR by plowing $10 billion into some focused great technological leap forward attempt, they're probably going to do it. That's the application of blunt trauma to technological progress. The difference between: we should consider doing XYZ thing, versus: we must do XYZ thing and do it now. Would the modern superpower version of the US Government - eg in ~1994-2004 at the height of its superpower status vs other nations - do projects like that? I'm skeptical the solitary superpower version of the US would create the Internet or go to the moon. In the next 20 years, in heightened nationalistic competition with China, I think you're going to see a revival of that spirit.