Regarding the T'au's timeline, I would like to point out the following about the human timeline:
- Day to day life and the general technology level 400 years ago (1600, to be clear) was extremely similar to that of 4000 years ago.
- The technological revolution, or more precisely the fact that it is still ongoing and still accelerating, is a unique historical anomaly. All previous technological revolutions, and there were many, sputtered and halted within a generation or two.
- The combination of ideas, inventions, and socioeconomic pressures which converged in the 1700s could just as easily have done so 2000 years ago or 2000 years in the future.
- The independent worldwide invention of agriculture ~10,000 years ago was almost certainly to do with the end of the recent glaciation period, which climatic event has nothing to do with human developmental or societal readiness to make the shift.
The graph of human civilization over time is hundreds of thousands of years of essentially flat, near-zero, followed by ten thousand years of very slightly less flat (but still essentially flat) linear growth, followed by about three hundred years (so far) of exponential growth. The timing of those transitions are basically accidents.
You're saying that with a lot of confidence, but it's not anywhere near that clear cut. At the very least, everything you said is a little wrong, and a good deal is quite wrong. Let me just go through some points, because this is a super complicated topic, and I'm only a lay person.
First, saying that technology of 1600 AD was extremely similar to -2000 BC is wrong. Flat out wrong. Like, that's comparing bronze age civilisations to a 'steel age' civilization (making significant amounts of steel is a good bit harder than iron). I'd also like to point at the development of both water wheel and windmill as two very important inventions, because that was the first time that work could be done without calories of food required. I'm not going to say anything further because that's as clear cut as it gets.
Even the much weaker statement (and fairly common) of saying that the medieval period did nothing is wrong. The movable type printing press was invented in 1440, and I think it's generally agreed as kind of a big deal for the spread of human knowledge. The windmill also comes from the medieval period. But there's a lot of subtle tech you generally don't think of that is nonetheless critical. Like the invention of writing good. Seriously, things like capital letters, punctuation, paragraphs, table of contents... all these things had to be invented. But without them, any scientific revolution runs into the problem that reading fucking sucks and takes forever and you don't want to do it. For that matter, good numbers also had to be invented, also in medieval period by the arab states (who didn't have a middle age, they had a
golden age).
Linked with this are cultural changes. The concept of time and space as things separate from what they contain and something you can split into discreet, measurable chunks is something that slowly developed over centuries before it culminated in the radical shifts of the scientific revolution.
And of course, the industrial revolution is not a given, and required a lot of prerequisites that simply were not given earlier. Not it's possible that another development path could've gotten there a few centuries earlier, but that is very,
very unclear, but certainly not two thousand years. The civilizations at the time simply did not have the economic, technological and cultural prerequisites necessary. I do agree that it could have been two thousand years later, or simply never happened. Probably, it's not like we have more than one to look at, and it's a devilishly complex topic.
On that note, I also agree that the end of the glacial period had a big impact on the development of agriculture and the resulting shifts in civilization. But at least some of it started before then, and it's still very complex with many interacting factors, so understanding it is difficult. At least we have multiple independent cases though.
As a final remark, I've talked about why the idea that nothing changed over very long parts is wrong. But I want to pick at the "it was linear, and then transitioned to exponential" idea. Because at the start,
every exponential curves looks linear. And sitting at the top of the curve it's very easy to look down and just say nothing changes. Which, relatively, yeah. But that's a fundamental,
defining part of an exponential. And it's quite easy to argue it goes a long way back. Because things get faster, for a long long time. They just used to be very slow. The first evidence of things like fire and stone tools predate homo sapiens and is
millions of years old. Agriculture is roughly 12 thousand years old. Then it took till about 6000 until the invention of writing, and the start of history (when we can start reading what people wrote).
The entire span of history fits into the time between when people settled, and when they started writing. That is fucking mind blowing.
Of course, even the idea of a single "progress value" for humanity is iffy, because you have many different civilizations, progressing in different ways and directions.