4 ms·

> The most important question we can ask of historians is “Why are some periods and places so astonishingly more productive than the rest?” Why is this an impo

> The most important question we can ask of historians is “Why are some periods and places so astonishingly more productive than the rest?” Why is this an important question? The reason the Nile river valley was so productive was because of the predictable annual flooding that layered fertile silt on the ground. You didn't have to be a genius to realize life there would be pretty sweet. I know the Cult of the Great Man is strong on HN, but lol. What is this crap?

apomekhanes 3y ago
Now this, I entirely agree with. On the one hand, it's a perfectly reasonable (and interesting) question (IMO). On the other hand, as you are pointing out - Banks appears to be writing quite explicitly from the perspective that "genius" and "productivity" (in the sense of creative, scientific, technological, etc. advances) are obviously GOOD and IMPORTANT. And, there seems to be a strong current of "if we knew what served as the 'fertile silt' for these ... 'Cambrian explosions' of creativity / science / tech... we could use this knowledge to foster the appropriate conditions and better harness our magnificent human potential." Now, granted, I'm obviously purposefully cherry picking (to a degree) from a large enough essay AND "putting words in his mouth" (hyperbolic, comparatively) to a degree that I'm almost certainly glossing over language that's more nuanced and judicious, say. Nevertheless, I'm somewhat surprised at ... his surprise, the rosy cast of the whole thing, and, I think the quite incomplete nature of his analysis of the data and information that IS available. Further, I outright disagree with any premise that "genius" is straightforwardly or simply "net positive". I don't think there's a need to bring the subjective into it, per se. And, much like discoveries and advances in "nuclear chemistry / physics" (providing a particularly stark example, IMO - nuclear/radiological weapons / nuclear energy of various types, medicine, etc.), most of this is "neutral", at best. I used to be far more "pro-advances", and I'm still no Luddite etc., but, really ... the continuous barrage of, in some sense, "f'ing around and finding out" (esp. when it comes to technologies enabled by all of the work of geniuses) really ought to make more people question assumptions about what is seemingly so often taken for granted as being "good". (Apologies for likely excessive verbosity - it's way too late...)
- tycho-newman 3y ago
  I mean, yeah. Fritz Haber was a productive genius.
addcommitpush 3y ago
This seems obvious for agricultural productivity but I fail to see how that would explain say, classical Athens.
- tycho-newman 3y ago
  Slavery explains classical Athens. All that free time was bought by slavery. This is well-documented in antiquity.

apomekhanes 3y ago

Now this, I entirely agree with. On the one hand, it's a perfectly reasonable (and interesting) question (IMO). On the other hand, as you are pointing out - Banks appears to be writing quite explicitly from the perspective that "genius" and "productivity" (in the sense of creative, scientific, technological, etc. advances) are obviously GOOD and IMPORTANT. And, there seems to be a strong current of "if we knew what served as the 'fertile silt' for these ... 'Cambrian explosions' of creativity / science / tech... we could use this knowledge to foster the appropriate conditions and better harness our magnificent human potential." Now, granted, I'm obviously purposefully cherry picking (to a degree) from a large enough essay AND "putting words in his mouth" (hyperbolic, comparatively) to a degree that I'm almost certainly glossing over language that's more nuanced and judicious, say. Nevertheless, I'm somewhat surprised at ... his surprise, the rosy cast of the whole thing, and, I think the quite incomplete nature of his analysis of the data and information that IS available. Further, I outright disagree with any premise that "genius" is straightforwardly or simply "net positive". I don't think there's a need to bring the subjective into it, per se. And, much like discoveries and advances in "nuclear chemistry / physics" (providing a particularly stark example, IMO - nuclear/radiological weapons / nuclear energy of various types, medicine, etc.), most of this is "neutral", at best. I used to be far more "pro-advances", and I'm still no Luddite etc., but, really ... the continuous barrage of, in some sense, "f'ing around and finding out" (esp. when it comes to technologies enabled by all of the work of geniuses) really ought to make more people question assumptions about what is seemingly so often taken for granted as being "good". (Apologies for likely excessive verbosity - it's way too late...)

tycho-newman 3y ago
I mean, yeah. Fritz Haber was a productive genius.

addcommitpush 3y ago

This seems obvious for agricultural productivity but I fail to see how that would explain say, classical Athens.

tycho-newman 3y ago
Slavery explains classical Athens. All that free time was bought by slavery. This is well-documented in antiquity.