The New World

Generally, science figures the age of homo sapiens, or man as he's genetically configured, to be about one and a half million years. Some interpretations and beliefs based on religious teachings place the age at about 7000 years. Either way, it's a long period of stagnation technically when compared to the last 100 to 150 years. Man has been around enough to offer up to 7000 years of recorded history, even the near full basic progression of a particular race.

Where were we? By that I mean, without genetic differences and the resulting difference in intellect, creativity, curiosity, and an ability to recognize cause and effect what held us back? On the other hand, if nothing held us back, what triggered such a difference to initiate such a rapid growth of technology?

Not that they are the exclusive possibilities, but it seems that there are two possible considerations.
(1) One consideration is that there was a restraining factor, restricting us from moving forward... something that kept us from seeing, thinking, evaluating, inventing, recording and building onto previous achievements.
(2) The second consideration is that there was no restraining factor. Man had proven himself over a million and a half years, (or for those not granting man that long, thousands of years) to lack the ability to create, observe, reason, or apply himself enough to advance without the application of an additional motivating force. So, the second consideration is that rather than a restricting factor, an additional motivation or ability was added, or a secret was shared.

Okay, which? What stopped us; or what started us?

I'm sure I'm not alone in having considered such questions. Probably many of us at some time or another ponders the question. Now's the time to share. Any thoughts?

I've read that the transition from hunting/gathering to agriculture produced an abundance of food and freed more people to specialize in tool making, science and art. When a sufficient inventory of knowledge and tools had accumulated, the industrial revolution started and the rest is history.

I was born in 1946. The transistor had not yet been invented. When I was in college, I calculated numbers by rubbing sticks together (slide rule).

Now the PC I'm writing this on probably has in excess of a billion transistors. The rate of technological development continues to explode.

There are more Republicans than there were prior to 150 years ago. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Actually, I believe there has been a pretty steady progress over the last 2000+ years. Look at all the Romans did BC. That stuff was pretty amazing at the time.

I believe harnessing electricity and communication was what put advancement into overdrive. Thomas Edison, Ben Franklin, Alexander Graham Bell and Michael Faraday did all this about 125-170 years ago. Faraday built the first electric motor. He later built the first generator and transformer all before about 1850. Edison went wild with electricity. The first long distance phone call was made in 1878. And of course Franklin harnessed electricity to get the ball rolling.

IMO those guys were the spark.

PhotonBoy, there is a problem with accepting the word of "experts". They're usually full of BS. There is nothing in history to indicate that man has only lived a tribal, agricultural life devoid of science and art. For thousands of years, and as far back as we can see, man has for the most part gathered in large communities, where it is only the responsibility of some to do the "hunting/gathering". Large cities not only permitted specialization in skills, it required it. We've got art as far back as we can look. Man did not only recently acquire intelligence or culture. The leading ones in large cultures have always been able to find others to do their chores for them.

My point is that things didn't happen quickly until there was a critical mass of people, knowledge and communications. Surely art and science have existed for thousands of years, but were at 'sub-optimal' levels. Once the threshold was passed, bingo: hyper-speed advancement.

Things have even gone into ultra-drive now that we have the internet.

David, the Greeks were familiar with electricity in 600 BC. The next we knew of any progress with it was 2200 years later. What was different about "Thomas Edison, Ben Franklin, Alexander Graham Bell and Michael Faraday" that they could see something the ones 2000 years earlier hadn't. They all had the same basic genetic make-up. They all had the powers of observation, intuition, and the intellect to deduce. They all lived in a society that recorded and left a written history of their achievements.
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

A postal system and the printing press allowed the later scientists to collaborate and learn from one another to a degree not possible for the Egyptians.

I agree in the whole critical mass idea. "If we are standing tall it is because we are standing on the shoulders of giants".

I also think our brains are getting slightly less powerful with each successive generation as our genome is copied over and over. This is being offset somewhat by improved communication, information tools and methods. Education (while it was improving) also helped offset the decline for a time. Remember, that there does not exist any truly accurate test for measuring the total quantity of intelligence in a person.

The ancients were truly intelligent. Imagine the observation and wisdom required to develop brass alloy without all the fancy tools we now take for granted. We might think they were stupid because they didn't have cell phones but those guys could probally out logic any of us.

Peter

Well, i hope we could evolve into a One world concept...

One World? Are you referring to a system whereby all peoples are subject to one ideology and system of government?

This would require more than micro or even macro evolution. The very thing that makes us struggle outward is the very thing that keeps us independent. To mutate ("evolve") to that point would sacrifice our very nature.

The exception is as Reagan said, "a threat from an alien race". But then we would be trading, "one universe" for, "one world".

Peter

PhontonBoy and Peter, you've got some worthwhile ideas in the collaboration concept. There was a piece of philosophy expressed during the days of Babylon, and it has been attributed to God himself. It was said "Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do". It's a sound philosophy. If you can overcome the inability to understand everyone else and collaborate, whatever can be imagined becomes a possibility.

A difference in language may cause some social schisms, but it doesn't effectively prohibit collaboration anymore.

Yup....totally agree....

I hope I could live to see the day where the whole world would become one, everyone works in a common, not compete with one another, and to advance together as ONE human race.

In theory, that would mean no wars, peace, happiness, less stress.

As we are now seperated as countries, a large portion of our resources are being wasted as we speak, just because we are seperated.

[ QUOTE ]
DrAg0n said:
Yup....totally agree....

I hope I could live to see the day where the whole world would become one, everyone works in a common, not compete with one another, and to advance together as ONE human race.

In theory, that would mean no wars, peace, happiness, less stress.

As we are now seperated as countries, a large portion of our resources are being wasted as we speak, just because we are seperated.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish.

Looking at the history of man, this will never, ever happen. For more examples of why hell will freeze over before people are willing to put aside their differences and historical baggage and work together as one, just read your daily newspaper headlines and of course, threads on politics and international affairs in any of the online forums and see how fast these degenerate into vicious personal attacks. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

It's happening now at the economic level (North American Free Trade Agreement, European Union) and is accelerating at the political and cultural levels too.

Some languages and cultures will disappear, but in the long run, we'll all benefit.

Communications technology (satellites, optical fiber, radio, TV, the internet, etc.) are allowing us to understand one another like never before in history. Some cultures will rebel (Quebec Separatists, Middle Eastern countries) but in the end the differences will fade.

We're all on spaceship earth.

what progress? at the time of the bible there were about a million people on the planet, and everyone seemed to have survived that OK..being aware of the electrostatic properties of amber is barely an "awareness of electricity" -- "technological progress" is occuring, but slowly, at first..
Perhaps the increase in population increased the probability of discoveries.. you know, the old '1000 apes at typewriters' joke? Give them enough time pounding on the keys, and one of them will eventually come up with something worthy of Shakespeare..
.. but where's the progress? have we progressed so far from the ghastly enjoyment of public torture and bloody murder of the coliseum? or the genocidal crucifixion illustrated along the Apian way?
are fewer of us starving to death every day? are we murdering fewer of each other? are we shutting away smaller portions of populations into dark diseased dungeons..? have we cultivated any new respect for life on this earth?
..seems if we're really smart, we'll find a way of gettting off this planet by the time we're done destroying it..

i think the first stepping stone is to have a single currency... just like inthe case of the Euro.... then there could be 100% free trade...then slowly progress into a One World concept....

Ted, progress by definition must be evaluated in contrast to a goal. You mention some things that are worthy of goals and objectives, and in light of them progress isn't being made. As far as progress in technology goes, depending on objectives there may or may not be progress.

Objectives can be individual, community, or objectives can embrace the goals of the entire human race, or even the entire ecosystem of the world.

Individually for myself, my objectives have had some progress, some spinning of my wheels, and some outright failures. The communities of which I'm part has the same experience. World wide and encompassing all of mankind, who can say? What is the objective of the human race?

Does human intelligence make us arrogant? We have the power to split atoms....and we make bombs! If we could focus our inteligence collectively as one(human race), this world could truly be a better place.

progress is powered by competition, hatred and fear.
sad, but true.

I would also be careful with that "one world and one identity"-thing, because just like PG pointed out in his post above we might loose our identity and personality in the process, becoming one uniform mass of cockroaches on a piece of rock in space.
differences make the human race exceptional, not uniformity.

bernhard

Differences like apartheid we can do without.