- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
...So what, exactly? What is your point in saying this?
First Contact with Space Age Stasis
- Thread starter chornedsnorkack
- Start date
- Discussion
- Location
- Europe
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.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
The most likely explanation is that an anti-rebellion measure metastasized.
This ties into one of the big reasons that, importantly, empires are usually bad in many important ways. Empires, by nature, have strong reason to fear revolt. There are powerful centrifugal forces that, by default, will pull an empire apart. The ruling imperial elite's chances of personal survival if the empire collapses are often pretty bad, too.
So the government of an empire tends to structure the society of that empire in ways calculated to minimize the chance of successful revolt, rather than in ways calculated to benefit the people of the empire.
This suggests both a mechanism to explain the Galactic Empire's uncharacteristic stability (thousands of years of rule, seriously?) and an explanation for why when it collapses, it collapses so thoroughly that without deliberate apocalypse-proofing efforts human civilization wouldn't recover for thirty thousand years.
...
This was already discussed, but basically it seems likely that the Empire deliberately subdivides resource extraction and industrial production, centralizing its control of technical knowledge into places that are easily controlled and kept nonthreatening. This has the advantage of making it difficult to raise up a power base independent of Trantor. If all the key industrial centers are in dome-cities on barren lifeless moons, for instance, then industrial centers can be controlled by cutting off their access to food (the same thing would work on Trantor itself, obviously).
This kind of centralization, combined with various other tactics of governance, can be used to give an imperial bureaucracy more control over society and ensure that any separatist factions or ambitious underlings are more likely to fail in overthrowing the emperor.
The downside is that as the imperial government begins to weaken and power inevitably falls into the hands of provincial governors and aspiring warlords, these centralized nodes of technology and industry and education become prizes to be fought over... and are likely to be destroyed in the conflict. Reliance on interstellar trade to source basic industrial goods for a supply chain means that industry and spare parts production break down. 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.
This ties into one of the big reasons that, importantly, empires are usually bad in many important ways. Empires, by nature, have strong reason to fear revolt. There are powerful centrifugal forces that, by default, will pull an empire apart. The ruling imperial elite's chances of personal survival if the empire collapses are often pretty bad, too.
So the government of an empire tends to structure the society of that empire in ways calculated to minimize the chance of successful revolt, rather than in ways calculated to benefit the people of the empire.
This suggests both a mechanism to explain the Galactic Empire's uncharacteristic stability (thousands of years of rule, seriously?) and an explanation for why when it collapses, it collapses so thoroughly that without deliberate apocalypse-proofing efforts human civilization wouldn't recover for thirty thousand years.
...
This was already discussed, but basically it seems likely that the Empire deliberately subdivides resource extraction and industrial production, centralizing its control of technical knowledge into places that are easily controlled and kept nonthreatening. This has the advantage of making it difficult to raise up a power base independent of Trantor. If all the key industrial centers are in dome-cities on barren lifeless moons, for instance, then industrial centers can be controlled by cutting off their access to food (the same thing would work on Trantor itself, obviously).
This kind of centralization, combined with various other tactics of governance, can be used to give an imperial bureaucracy more control over society and ensure that any separatist factions or ambitious underlings are more likely to fail in overthrowing the emperor.
The downside is that as the imperial government begins to weaken and power inevitably falls into the hands of provincial governors and aspiring warlords, these centralized nodes of technology and industry and education become prizes to be fought over... and are likely to be destroyed in the conflict. Reliance on interstellar trade to source basic industrial goods for a supply chain means that industry and spare parts production break down. 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.
- Location
- Europe
What is "pre-industrial" for "a mode of existence"?
Looking at what Korell can or cannot do:
Isaac Asimov as Narrator said:
But:Isaac Asimov as Narrator said:
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:
Steel is used for visible structural supports - not weightbearing masonry or even reinforced concrete with internal iron reinforcement.Isaac Asimov as Narrator said:
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:
Hober Mallow said:
Asper said:
Isaac Asimov as Narrator said:
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 results 3 years later:
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:
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
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:
In the English of Asimov's day, or of the present, a "hulk" is typically used to refer to an obsolete or aging ship, one that is no longer useful for long range transportation. Such a ship is not seaworthy and cannot safely be sent out to travel across the ocean, but its hull still floats. So propulsion systems (masts and sails, or engines) would be removed and the ship would be used as a giant barge or a floating barracks for passengers or prisoners. Asimov is probably using the word "hulk" a bit less than literally (since a real 'hulk' cannot move under its own power), but to me the implication is clear.
The "battered, clumsy hulks" are most likely older ships, probably large ones, that are no longer suitable for long range space travel. They are "battered," which implies that they have taken some battering- that is, that they have been used extensively and are now visibly damaged from wear and tear suffered during their use.
They may have been crudely refitted with improvised propulsion systems, but they are almost certainly ships that have worn out from long use and age, not newly built ones. It is very rare for a newly built ship to be called a 'hulk.' They are contrasted with the "limping relics" because those are the ships that are still in reasonably good condition- although they are "limping" due to reduced systems performance.
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.
Note that the time the novels were written affects what they predict. A 1980s desktop computer would seem like an advanced piece of futuristic technology to the 1940s reader, just as much "future tech" as a hyperdrive or a handheld personal force field generator. A steel-frame building would not seem futuristic to the 1940s reader. But to us today, the computer and the building would both seem quite normal.
...
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.
Such a planet likely cannot manufacture its own starships from raw materials. If it has that capability, the tools to do so must themselves be aging relics that cannot be feasibly replaced anywhere within Korell's sphere of influence. Though the tools Hober Mallow markets, or others like them, might do the job!
It is more plausible that Korell has the ability to do at least limited maintenance on spacecraft (the way that a mechanic might be able to change the oil in a car engine, or replace a broken wire, but not have the specialized parts to replace a blown-out cylinder and need to order them specially). But that if Korell has any ability to put together new or 'new' spacecraft, it involves salvaging atomic-age technology from other ships. For instance, cannibalizing a broken ship for spare parts to repair another, or taking a large luxury liner that had eight powerful engines, and putting each of the engines into a small tramp freighter.
- Location
- Europe
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.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
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.
But only a fool says that because all things lie on a continuum that there are no identifiable categories within that continuum.
It is simply and obviously true that, within the context of the Foundation novels, a given society may be primitive and entirely pre-industrial, for instance... and that in context no one would interpret "pre-industrial" to mean "steam engines."
Or the society may be 'industrial' and not 'atomic,' in that it has things like combustion engines, steel, concrete, and coherent planetary governments, but not walnut-sized personal force field generators, hyperdrive motors, and handheld energy blasters.
There may be transitional states and complications, but this does not matter, unless your goal is just to pointlessly obfuscate things and waste all our time babbling about nothing.
- Location
- Europe
"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".
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.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
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.
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.
Is the goal here just to craft vague rambling restatements of well known facts that people are unlikely to disagree with?
Last edited:
- Location
- Europe
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".
Some people would disagree about that statement.
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.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
You have a habit of forgetting why people said things and arguing around and around in circles.
Your original contention was that there was something wrong with the idea of using "transitional" to describe eras in which technologies that reflect one broad paradigm coexist with another, less sophisticated paradigm. Such as mechanized steam trains coexisting with ox-carts. Or starships that have intricate and amazingly powerful nuclear energy supplies coexisting with coal-fired power plants.
I countered that it was perfectly reasonable to use this term, for transitional societies. That is, for societies that are in the process of gaining or losing high technology, the very ones you are supposedly interested in!
...
Now you are talking about civilizations that occupy some condition of stasis, and saying that "transitional" does not apply to them because of their longevity. But by definition, such a protracted form of stasis will not remain in a transitional state. It will proceed to completion!
All applications of the known technologies will tend to be fully explored and distributed over time. In some particular settings, we may see apparent anachronisms (swords in Dune), but this will generally be caused by specific factors relevant to the internal logic of the setting. Such a setting may seem "transitional" compared to our expectations of how evolving technology works, but it represents a stable plateau to the inhabitants of its own setting!
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!
What purpose does this line of discussion still serve? You're just going around in quibbling circles.
You have to know what I mean, realistically, when I say "transitional society with both industrial and Foundation-atomic technologies." There is no point in endlessly obfuscating this.
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."
This is a completely irrelevant and vague thing to say, and you aren't proving anything significant by saying this. It is as if you'd said "when there is weather, the sky may be involved." Yes. Obviously.
You're right, but unless your entire purpose in this thread is just to stand around and say obvious things, we should probably move to some topic that's specific and provides room for an interesting, functional discussion.
- Location
- Europe
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.
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.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
That doesn't give you grounds to move the goalposts.
Different science fiction settings exist within different technological contexts, because the authors created them that way. Some things don't generalize across different settings. This is especially true of the Foundation and Dune settings, which have very idiosyncratic technology on account of having had their definitive founding work done in the 1940s and 1965, respectively.
It is either deeply tone-deaf or deeply dishonest, therefore, to change the subject away from a discussion of technological stasis in the Foundation setting or in Dune to start talking about Warhammer 40k or Star Wars. All these different space opera settings are, importantly, not interchangeable. We can learn things that may have general application, but we cannot just arbitrarily flip from one to another when doing a deep dive on what's going on inside one of them.
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.
So please. Stop playing silly games.
Permit the conversation to focus, to be coherent, to not constantly get sidetracked by random obfuscations and tangents and cryptic stuff and changes of subject. If you want this to go anywhere, stop getting in the way.
If you continue to obstruct the conversation rather than participating gracefully, this cannot continue.
Now, I had two points.
1) Specifically within the context of the Foundation setting, technology appears to exist within three broad 'tiers.' There is insight to be gained as to the nature of technological stasis within that setting, coming from discussion of the tier system and how various worlds move up and down it.
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.
- Location
- Europe
2) was the main topic all along.
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?
Technological stasis at so high level has not happened in recent history of Earth (19...21 century). If and when we encounter such society, would surprise be expected on our side? Any details?
Eventual stasis is a recurring prediction from various economic schools. However, it usually corresponds to the limits of the model rather than reality.
The basic idea is that there's a finite set of useful inventions, and at some point either they'll all be invented or everything not invented yet will be a downgrade. This hasn't actually happened, ever.
Or else we'll reach an equilibrium point where all effort goes to maintaining the existing technology with no resources left for making improvements. This has happened to closed communities, but so far has been broken each time, whether positively by technology diffusion or negatively by resource depletion or simple bad luck.
The latter case isn't happening for society as a whole because we're directing a lot of our budget not just towards technology in general but towards labor- and resource-saving technology in particular. The savings mean we always have some spare resources for the next round of innovation. It seems obvious to us that innovation ought to be used that way because of the accounting we use. We reduce both labor and resources to monetary costs. We use the same sort of money to fund technology development, and to make the apples-and-oranges comparisons between different technologies in practice.
So the way to have a large and diverse society reach a high but static equilibrium is to change the accounting. Have the society attribute costs to technology that don't reflect the resources used, or have the society consider effort-savings unimportant. Or perhaps entirely ditch the idea of cost-benefit analyses for inventing and adopting new technology. Anything to keep them from thinking it a problem that the technology gap between us and them consumes more effort than it saves.
The basic idea is that there's a finite set of useful inventions, and at some point either they'll all be invented or everything not invented yet will be a downgrade. This hasn't actually happened, ever.
Or else we'll reach an equilibrium point where all effort goes to maintaining the existing technology with no resources left for making improvements. This has happened to closed communities, but so far has been broken each time, whether positively by technology diffusion or negatively by resource depletion or simple bad luck.
The latter case isn't happening for society as a whole because we're directing a lot of our budget not just towards technology in general but towards labor- and resource-saving technology in particular. The savings mean we always have some spare resources for the next round of innovation. It seems obvious to us that innovation ought to be used that way because of the accounting we use. We reduce both labor and resources to monetary costs. We use the same sort of money to fund technology development, and to make the apples-and-oranges comparisons between different technologies in practice.
So the way to have a large and diverse society reach a high but static equilibrium is to change the accounting. Have the society attribute costs to technology that don't reflect the resources used, or have the society consider effort-savings unimportant. Or perhaps entirely ditch the idea of cost-benefit analyses for inventing and adopting new technology. Anything to keep them from thinking it a problem that the technology gap between us and them consumes more effort than it saves.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
Then let's act like it.
@Graviator points out that if technological stasis occurs in an advanced society, two likely explanations are:
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.
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.
If you want something more contingent, for most of human history technological progress and economic growth was slow, and I think this suggests that rapid technological improvement and rapid economic growth requires an institutional and cultural "recipe" that did not exist in most human cultures and is not easily assembled. There are five synergistic factors that I think enabled rapid technological improvement and rapid economic growth in the eighteenth to twenty-first centuries, and by looking at the inverse of these factors you can see the sort of cultural and institutional features a "space age stasis" civilization might have.
1) Science in the sense we know it, with the scientific method, systematic experimentation, peer review, dedicated research institutions, etc..
2) A "look-forwards" notion of history as progressive. Most human cultures had a "look-backwards" concept of history as stagnant or cyclical or deteriorist. A "look-forwards" concept of history makes people more willing to invest in innovation and more receptive to innovations (technological, social, and political). A "look-backwards" concept of history makes people conservative; if the best you can hope for is maintaining the achievements and knowledge of your ancestors, it follows that any change is likely to be for the worse.
3) A willingness to invest resources in the institutions that support and drive innovation; scientific institutions, educational institutions, etc..
4) Widespread and open sharing of information.
5) A relatively egalitarian social order. This connects to and feeds everything else! Unequal societies tend to be conservative, because the people who are doing best in the status quo have lots of power; rich oligarchs are the people with the least to gain and the most to lose from "rocking the boat"; any big change in society is likely to destabilize the systems that empowers them. Egalitarian societies tend to invest more in increasing production; rich oligarchs can live well as islands of wealth in a sea of poverty (and might actually be more secure in a society like that; poor people have fewer resources to use to challenge the ruling class), but if regular people are to live well the whole society must be rich. By extension, egalitarian societies tend to invest more in the institutions that support and drive innovation: public schools, universities, research institutions, etc.. Information tends to be more freely shared in an egalitarian society; in an unequal societies those who have knowledge are likely to see it as a precious source of power and keep it secret for maximum leverage. Because oligarchs are well-served by conservatism, a look-backwards worldview is congenial to them; people with a look-forward worldview are more likely to question social conventions and social hierarchies, so a look-forward worldview is dangerous to oligarchs. The scientific mindset, with its emphasis on truth-seeking and optimization, is also likely to lead people to question social conventions, and therefore it is also dangerous to oligarchs and oligarchs are likely to be distrustful of it.
I think for a "space age stasis" civilization, 5) is a likely key factor. "Space age stasis" is a likely fate of a civilization the reverts back to feudalism. I don't necessarily mean feudalism in the literal sense of kings and barons and oaths of fealty and so on (though that's a common feature of "space age stasis" civilizations in science fiction!), but feudalism in the sense David Brin means when he talks about feudalism as a socio-economic attractor state; a "pyramid" social order with a few rich people lording it over huge masses of poor people who are just getting by, and where the masses have little political voice.
So, to tie that back to a question you asked at the beginning of this discussion:
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.
Last edited:
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. Similarly, practical advancement did happen, albeit slowly, prior to the scientific method (1), and any obviously useful innovations spread by mimicry or outright espionage even when not deliberately shared (4).
However a galactic empire with only limited FTL might have very slow tech diffusion (4), on a scale of hundreds of thousands of years to circulate an improvement, simply due to low traffic. In that case, only some of the empire is in stasis.
However a galactic empire with only limited FTL might have very slow tech diffusion (4), on a scale of hundreds of thousands of years to circulate an improvement, simply due to low traffic. In that case, only some of the empire is in stasis.
Last edited:
- Location
- Europe
Or they are focused on profit extraction, and spending all available resources to maintain society.
After all, given a factory and some spare money, there are a bunch of potential ways to invest the money.
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?
Plus many other forms of social investments. Instead of paying off the owner of competing factory, the investor with spare capital might find it cheaper and therefore better ROI to bribe a judge and/or some jurors to find that the factory owner is not entitled to own his factory. Or lobby/bribe some politicians to deny business licence to competitor or grant government-backed monopoly to investor.
Or diversify out of factory altogether. Acquire land, serfs/slaves, noble titles, venal offices. Throw parties, build luxury cars... conspicuous consumption is not just consumption, it is investment into society. Precisely into politicians, voters, jurors who will find for the investor and against his adversaries.
If social investment gives better ROI than technological investment for any larger concentrated sums then it makes sense that only the lowest hanging fruits get picked. Like reinventing infernal combustion engine, or importing ready-made and proven high technology from old Empire or Foundation. Anyone with the money to do any more, such as recover the technology of praseodymium powered (sic) nuclear reactors, has better uses for his money - or other people have better uses for the money of a fool who won´t use his money to protect itself.
- Location
- Europe
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?
Theory 5 is about who is allowed to innovate, rather than freedom in general. As it happens, the 14th to 18th century in Europe corresponded with the gradual decline of feudalism and the rise of commercial power. With commercial power came the freedom of commerce agents to innovate and spread innovation.
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.
Last edited:
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
I think a large part of the answer is "positive feedback loop."
In a pre-industrial society, concentrations of wealth tend to be either imperial capitals or trading centers- the two are only sometimes co-located.
Less Confident Hypothesizing Follows:
The capitals of major empires or quasi-imperial states (e.g. medieval France) tend to form the center of a huge wealth extraction network- much of the wealth collected in taxes gets spent in and around the capital. This supports very large populations and a lot of wealth, but importantly the capital region tends to be able to draw labor along with the money, especially in societies with a lot of unfree labor (e.g. Rome). Thus, the incentive to innovate and develop proto-industrial technology (e.g. water power) is not as reliably present in the region, though such technologies may emerge anyway (I'm not sure there were any major Roman watermills immediately around Rome proper, but I wouldn't be surprised).
In a pre-industrial society, concentrations of wealth tend to be either imperial capitals or trading centers- the two are only sometimes co-located.
Less Confident Hypothesizing Follows:
The capitals of major empires or quasi-imperial states (e.g. medieval France) tend to form the center of a huge wealth extraction network- much of the wealth collected in taxes gets spent in and around the capital. This supports very large populations and a lot of wealth, but importantly the capital region tends to be able to draw labor along with the money, especially in societies with a lot of unfree labor (e.g. Rome). Thus, the incentive to innovate and develop proto-industrial technology (e.g. water power) is not as reliably present in the region, though such technologies may emerge anyway (I'm not sure there were any major Roman watermills immediately around Rome proper, but I wouldn't be surprised).
- Location
- Europe
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:
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.
- Location
- Europe
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".