4 ms·
This is a good argument. I would only add one thing to it: a scientific understanding of the principles behind the new technologies makes major step changes in
by kitd 4y ago
This is a good argument. I would only add one thing to it: a scientific understanding of the principles behind the new technologies makes major step changes in mechanised capabilities possible ("paradigm shifts" urgh), and probably explains why the Industrial revolution didn't happen in Greece or Rome.
It's those major step changes that open up the doors to unforeseen opportunities and make previously unviable businesses economically possible.
- TheOtherHobbes 4y agoYes - the UK had the Royal Society pioneering the idea of organised research and result sharing on a national and eventually on an international scale. Before that "research" wasn't really a thing. Discussions between intellectuals were scholastic and often implicitly about political status. The scientific tradition of hands-on experimentation and observation shifted the emphasis to building and trading rather than debating and conquering. So effectively the UK invented the concept of invention. Other cultures were imperial, martial, and slave-owning, and ambitious men didn't concern themselves with hands-on work. That was for tradesmen and slaves. Although some invention happened, it was outside the main power hierarchy. It wasn't a tradition. The UK - only partially, but enough - combined mercantile opportunism with practical invention. It took about a century, but invention became a recognisable tradition in its own right, and a credible high-reward career path for ambitious people. (Mostly men of course. But even so.)