3 ms·

I had a history prof address these feats-of-observation of these primordial scientists: you've got a group of totally idle wealthy, with up to 16 hours of day t

I had a history prof address these feats-of-observation of these primordial scientists: you've got a group of totally idle wealthy, with up to 16 hours of day time to fill, across millions of people and thousands of years. Eratosthenes could've thought about this problem — and nothing else — for a thousand hours in just six months, with plenty of time off to pursue other hobbies. When's the last time you dedicated 1000 hours to a single problem?

MilStdJunkie 3y ago
Absolutely! That's absolutely a prerequisite for these periods of very sudden advancement. Look at the 19th century! Very nearly the entire world's capacity was pulled into a very small geographic area, which then made the modern world. It's a bit depressing because of the brutality that's involved, but let's not write off Europe and Greece quite so quickly. There's plenty of powers in world history that established a similar level of "excess capacity" re: labor but didn't engage in anything that could be interpreted as "societal advancement". England, during the rise of its supremacy, decided to end slavery. Yeah yeah yeah I know - there were very good realpolitik reasons for this, and England over the centuries has had some very good PR agents, but in the end, they did it. The Enlightenment was, compared to the theocratic/autocratic fusion of the early modern era, an advancement[1]. I'll die on that hill. It wasn't possible without the blood and labor of countless aboriginal peoples, who we should honor in the same proportion, of course. [1] There's some disagreement about this in the current era, which I won't express an opinion on. "Palingenesis" is an applicable cautionary term.