- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
...So what, exactly? What is your point in saying this?
Trying to figure out what precisely the social limitations of late Empire/post-Imperial societies were, that prevented the societies, other thn Foundation, from coming up with new inventions and restoring the broken down established technology.
What is "pre-industrial" for "a mode of existence"?When advanced tools (a nuclear-powered machine that uses handwavium magical bullshit force fields to put holes in steel) break down, most places have no native engineering expertise. They cannot design cruder alternatives (a big-ass electric drill to put holes in steel).
So they make do with failing equipment, and then with nothing, collapsing to an utterly degraded mode of existence that is assuredly pre-atomic, and very possibly pre-industrial.
Isaac Asimov as Narrator said:Materially, its prosperity was low. The day of the Galactic Empire had departed, with nothing but silent memorials and broken structures to testify to it. The day of the Foundation had not yet come
But:Isaac Asimov as Narrator said:The spaceport itself was decrepit and decayed, and the crew of the Far Star were drearily aware of that. The moldering hangars made for a moldering atmosphere
The implication of comparing "clumsy hulks" with "relics of ancient glory" suggests that the "clumsy hulks" were newer builds. Clearly worse than "relics of ancient glory", but as clearly somewhat usable. Korell could build somewhat usable new starships, if much worse quality than the century-old specimens they kept using - remember that Earth cannot.Isaac Asimov as Narrator said:The squadron of Korellian ships that had shot out to intercept the Far Star had been tiny, limping relics of ancient glory or battered, clumsy hulks.
Steel is used for visible structural supports - not weightbearing masonry or even reinforced concrete with internal iron reinforcement.Isaac Asimov as Narrator said:But the lofty, steel-girdered walls that circled the place had quite obviously been recently strengthened an unfitting occupation for such a Well-Beloved Asper.
On the other hand, building a fortress on an eminence may be helpful against angry mobs on foot, but it is not awfully effective against spaceships - at least against spaceships with projectile weapons installed. Just who is Asper fearing and who is he trusting?Isaac Asimov as Narrator said:The Commdor referred to his dwelling place as a house. The populace undoubtedly would call it a palace. To Mallow's straightforward eyes, it looked uncommonly like a fortress. it was built on an eminence that overlooked the capital. Its walls were thick and reinforced. Its approaches were guarded, and its architecture was shaped for defense. Just the type of dwelling, Mallow thought sourly, for Asper, the Well-Beloved.
Hober Mallow said:Well, take your steel foundries. I have handy little gadgets that could do tricks with steel that would cut production costs to one percent of previous marks. You could cut prices by half, and still split extremely fat profits with the manufacturers. I tell you, I could show you exactly what I mean, if you allowed me a demonstration. Do you have a steel foundry in this city? It wouldn't take long.
Asper said:
Isaac Asimov as Narrator said:The foundry was large, and bore the odor of decay which no amount of superficial repairs could quite erase. It was empty now and in quite an unnatural state of quiet,
Hober judges the production cost difference 100 times - but there was a working foundry (in the capital - was that a coincidence?). And they knew of buzz saws. Odor of decay suggests that the foundry was old, not newbuilt. The castle of Commdor must have been built in the last century, on the other hand - because the old imperial governor would not have lived in a fortress.Hober Mallow said:"The instrument," he said, "is dangerous, but so is a buzz saw.
Jorane Sutt said:
Korell could sustain some level of industry - lower than during Empire. But in a century, Korell could not recover.Hober Mallow said:
It is not a special technical term. There is no point in my defining basic English words. A "pre-industrial mode of existence" is a fairly well-understood concept; look up the words in a dictionary if you need to.
Alternate hypothesis, based on a more precise understanding of the implications of English words:But:
The implication of comparing "clumsy hulks" with "relics of ancient glory" suggests that the "clumsy hulks" were newer builds. Clearly worse than "relics of ancient glory", but as clearly somewhat usable. Korell could build somewhat usable new starships, if much worse quality than the century-old specimens they kept using - remember that Earth cannot.
Steel is not somehow "more advanced" than reinforced concrete. The use of either indicates basic industrial technology (say, very late 19th century on Earth, or later)... and does not provide evidence for any higher technology than that. The same can be said of the foundry.Steel is used for visible structural supports - not weightbearing masonry or even reinforced concrete with internal iron reinforcement.
It is relevant here, which is why I asked you first.It is not a special technical term. There is no point in my defining basic English words. A "pre-industrial mode of existence" is a fairly well-understood concept; look up the words in a dictionary if you need to.
My point here about defining "industrial" and "pre-industrial" is how the "different level" technologies commonly coexist.Steel is not somehow "more advanced" than reinforced concrete. The use of either indicates basic industrial technology (say, very late 19th century on Earth, or later)... and does not provide evidence for any higher technology than that. The same can be said of the foundry.
So the conclusion is quite simple, really. In the setting of Foundation, technology falls into three categories.
There is "pre-industrial" technology- equipment and techniques that predate the Industrial Revolution, such as plowing fields with draft animals.
There is "atomic age" technology, the allegedly 'nuclear-powered' equipment that does amazing, futuristic things from the point of view of the intended reader of the stories (that is, a man living in the 1940s and reading a magazine serial).
And then there is "industrial age" technology, which would seem normal and unremarkable to the 1940s reader.
Now, the implication of this for a world like Korell is clear. They have lost the ability to duplicate atomic technology; it is nowhere to be found on their planet, or on any of the nearby planets that can be conveniently reached with the ships at their disposal. That is why Hober Mallow is so free to introduce it to them!
Korell, unlike some worlds (Rossum) has not lost the ability to maintain industrial technology. They have facilities for manufacturing steel goods. They can probably manufacture other things. Their lifestyle is, probably, recognizable to a typical industrial age reader of Astounding Stories of Science Fiction circa 1940.
There are very straightforward words for this, words like "transitional." Obviously if I'm going to subdivide the entirety of human history, past and future, into three technological phases ("pre-industrial, industrial, atomic") there will be edge cases. Societies where industrial technology exists but is not universal, and where preindustrial technology is still in widespread use for important, load-bearing functions of society.It is relevant here, which is why I asked you first.
My point here about defining "industrial" and "pre-industrial" is how the "different level" technologies commonly coexist.
For example, steam powered trains.
Railways with "industrially" produced iron rails are by definition an "industrial" technology.
And yet, steam powered trains never could replace draught animals for shorthaul traction, ploughing etc. Infernal combustion engines could - but then steam engines were replaced by electric and diesel engines on trains, too. Which means steam engines always coexisted with preindustrial technology.
Back to lifestyle... if a peasant has his sold crop loaded on a train but uses animal traction both for ploughing the fields and for delivering the crop to station, is the peasant then leading "industrial way of life"? Just because industrially produced goods are present and economically important for a society does not have to mean that the people directly involved in industry make up a majority of society.
"Transitional" is straightforward but grossly misleading. Remember the initial point. "Space Age Stasis".There are very straightforward words for this, words like "transitional."
I'm beginning to think your goal IS just to pointlessly obfuscate things and waste all our time babbling about nothing, then?"Transitional" is straightforward but grossly misleading. Remember the initial point. "Space Age Stasis".
"Transitional" implies that it is somehow a stage of "transition" from "pre-industrial" to "industrial".
OK... but what's your point? Yes, it is contrary to the experience of Earth circa 1800-2020 to combine familiar industrial technology with regression, but it's hardly out of the question or implausible.ALL societies that Asimov or his readers knew of in 1940 that had 19th or 20th century technology featured this technology as a result of recent and rapid technological innovation. Both the societies that invented those innovations locally and societies that introduced those inventions from elsewhere.
It was still the case for Dune readers in 1960s or Star Wars viewers in 1970s. And it still is the case for us in 2020.
Therefore, when we encounter a society that has 19th or 20th century technology and that has a technological level which has been stationary for centuries or which is a decline from a higher level, I expect a certain level of surprise, weirdness and puzzlement. On first sight, we might find Korellians driven in familiar oil-powered steel cars... but on second sight, on hearing that two hundred year old cars are technically more advanced than recent production... I´d expect puzzlement.
But we could also see a society where the most advanced technology is neither expanding nor being lost, over period of centuries and millennia. High Empire of Foundation, Dune, Star Wars, Warhammer are all described as having had similar basic technological level for millennia.I'm beginning to think your goal IS just to pointlessly obfuscate things and waste all our time babbling about nothing, then?
Transitions can point both ways. A society that is in the process of losing its most advanced technology and reverting to a simpler, more easily sustained technological base is also a "transitional" civilization. It will be characterized by some of the same signs as an advancing one. You'll see a lot of examples of one kind of technology, interspersed with isolated instances of a much more powerful and capable kind of technology that for whatever reason cannot be mass-produced and used as the basic mode of living of the citizenry as a whole.
Some people would disagree about that statement.OK... but what's your point? Yes, it is contrary to the experience of Earth circa 1800-2020 to combine familiar industrial technology with regression, but it's hardly out of the question or implausible.
You have a habit of forgetting why people said things and arguing around and around in circles.But we could also see a society where the most advanced technology is neither expanding nor being lost, over period of centuries and millennia. High Empire of Foundation, Dune, Star Wars, Warhammer are all described as having had similar basic technological level for millennia.
Such a society has some of the same signs, but cannot be called "transitional".
An inane cipher of a comment. "Some people would disagree with" the idea that familiar Earthly industrial technologies can be combined with a civilization whose technology is regressing. Why? For what reason? The claim has no internal logic to it. Of course a civilization that used to have far more advanced technologies, but now relies on the sort of thing we would expect to see in the 1930s, should be considered both "transitional" and in technological decline!
All of this is blindingly obvious. YES, clearly, a society that has what we consider 'advanced' technology but that is not innovating is, to summarize, "different from our own."My point is that if we look at the society that has complex technology - and therefore necessarily specialists involved in reproducing it - but that is different in not producing technological innovations, then if we get a closer view of that society, we should have a look at the means available and incentives applicable to those specialists to understand how those are different from our society, and how those differences end up producing the result that they do not innovate. And when we see and talk about those groups, we should keep in mind those differences.
Furthermore, you are referencing various other settings, when I was making a point about the Foundation, which you decided to talk about in the first place!
The point is that the whole critizism of Modern Stasis and Space Age Stasis attacks the plausibility of this. The only known society with industrial technology - that after 1800 - was rapidly implementing innovations all the time. Therefore the questions are how it is possible for a society with a pool of specialists to sustain industrial technology to not also innovate and also recover any technology recently lost.An inane cipher of a comment. "Some people would disagree with" the idea that familiar Earthly industrial technologies can be combined with a civilization whose technology is regressing. Why? For what reason? The claim has no internal logic to it. Of course a civilization that used to have far more advanced technologies, but now relies on the sort of thing we would expect to see in the 1930s, should be considered both "transitional" and in technological decline!
All of this is blindingly obvious. YES, clearly, a society that has what we consider 'advanced' technology but that is not innovating is, to summarize, "different from our own."
That doesn't give you grounds to move the goalposts.Because the trope of Space Age Stasis exists in a number of settings besides Foundation. It therefore is worth discussing both in context of Foundation and of other settings.
And when I attempt to address them, you tend to start fucking around. Looking at the way that this thread has been going, nobody else is still willing to play with you anymore, because of this. And I'm running out of patience myself.The point is that the whole critizism of Modern Stasis and Space Age Stasis attacks the plausibility of this. The only known society with industrial technology - that after 1800 - was rapidly implementing innovations all the time. Therefore the questions are how it is possible for a society with a pool of specialists to sustain industrial technology to not also innovate and also recover any technology recently lost.
And those questions need addressing somehow.
2) was the main topic all along.2) In a more general and abstract sense, we could discuss the process by which a society may find itself with technology, in the sense of machines and the products of something recognizable as the discipline of "engineering," and with technicians, in the sense of people who maintain and design the technology, but not with progress, in the sense that all that society's lost technology is rapidly reconstructed. This, too, leads to insight on the nature of technological stasis in fiction.
Which of these would you prefer to discuss? Please choose one.
Then let's act like it.
@Graviator points out that if technological stasis occurs in an advanced society, two likely explanations are:So by which processes can this plausibly happen?
In works that do not discuss the details, can you fill the gaps by first principles reasoning? By examples from other settings, provided they do not contradict facts as specified in the current setting?
The simplest explanation is that technological progress is naturally logarithmic; after a certain point all the "low hanging fruit" of technological innovation is "picked," points of diminishing returns are reached, fundamental physical limits are reached, further improvement requires solving much harder problems, and as a result progress slows dramatically to something closer to its rate before the industrial revolution, or just stops entirely. I mentioned this in my first post in this discussion. I think there's a decent argument that something like this is already being approached. Which would be a bigger future shock, going from 1900 to 1950 or going from 1969 to 2019? I think probably the former.2) was the main topic all along.
So by which processes can this plausibly happen?
If 5) is the key factor, likely usually something like "Oh my God, what a hellhole! We'd better buy, beg, borrow, steal, or copy some GalTech weapons before they decide to conquer us and enslave us!" Because a "space age stasis" society where 5) is the key factor that's keeping it in stasis will likely be the sort of society that would inspire more-or-less that reaction in more-or-less anyone with any significant liberal or leftist values.If a society of spacefaring humans in space age stasis, one which is having some geographic discoveries - that´s how they discover us - but no scientific ones, were to have First Contact with us, 21st century Earth, used to taking rapid scientific and technological development and social change as granted and inevitable... how would we react?
Or they are focused on profit extraction, and spending all available resources to maintain society.1) The society is spending all available resources just to maintain technology it already has, which is both unsustainable in the long run (a disaster that temporarily reduces resources will permanently reduce available technology) and requires a certain amount of self-sabotage (despite a desperate situation, the society must NOT seeking labor-saving or otherwise more efficient innovations that let them do more with less).
2) More sustainably, the society may not be dangerously overstrained, but may have different values- it may have collectively decided that they "don't mind" spending extra resources in specific fields to do things "properly," or have adopted a social model that is less relentlessly focused on profit extraction than modern capitalism while also having solved all the obvious economic and technological problems in their society and become somewhat laid back about things.
Europe was not egalitarian before French Revolution, end of 18th century. And yet Europe from 14th to 18th century had appreciably more technical innovations than Islamic world, India or China. There must have been some more reasons, but which?Space age stasis doesn't just mean slower advancement than the modern era, it means little detectable advancement over a period of centuries. Things like a less egalitarian social order (5) slow things down, but not that much - fewer people can innovate, but innovations still happen and are in the hands of those empowered to implement them.
Hmm... an innovation applies to all the owner's factories. But the production of another identical factory remains the same no matter how many factories the owner has. So there's some number of existing factories after which innovation has a better return than replication.The factory owner might try and invest it into innovations to increase the efficiency of the factory.
Alternatively, the factory owner with spare capital might simply buy next factory, with exact same technology and efficiency.
Which of those gives the better and safer Return On Investment?
While technological investment may have economies of scale, social investment may also have economies of scale. Like lobbying/bribing politicians to gain monopolies, or bribing judges to get your competitors´ factories below market price. With applicable proverb:Hmm... an innovation applies to all the owner's factories. But the production of another identical factory remains the same no matter how many factories the owner has. So there's some number of existing factories after which innovation has a better return than replication.
My point is that for large investors, social investment into lobbying and bribery may have better return on investment than technological investment. At zero or negative sum for the society.Poor thieves in halters we behold; And great thieves in their chains of gold.
Who the bribers are is relevant if in the context is "what else could they have accomplished with the money they ended up spending on bribes".Bribery-induced misgovernment is of course a problem no matter who the bribers are.