| ▲ | wongarsu 6 days ago |
| Obviously something of this magnitude will have blindspots. This tech tree seems to be vastly underselling the impact of advances in metallurgy and precision machining. As well as most of what you might call "basic science". This leads to e.g. the Gas Turbine just appearing out of nowhere, not depending on any previous technology |
|
| ▲ | AlotOfReading 6 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| They tried to define what they mean by technology [1], but they seemingly gave up on it partway through. Had they followed it consistently, they would have excluded certain cultural-practice-based technologies like nixtamalization that made the list. The inconsistent definition and the pretty large gaps leads to a lot of oddness. Just look at how sparse anything related to textiles is. "Clothing" just gets one "invention" in 168k B.P., even though a t-shirt and an arctic jacket are obviously very different technologies. New world agriculture is similarly strange. Nodes appear from nowhere and lead nowhere, presumably because there are implicit "nature" edges they didn't want to represent as technology. [1] https://www.hopefulmons.com/p/what-counts-as-a-technology |
| |
| ▲ | rtpg 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Feel like if you're doing something like this you should just basically maximalize your definition. The fun here is seeing all the nodes, obviously! Maybe then you get into arguments about whether the dependencies were "required", but there it's more or less resolvable by relying on what "actually" happened rather than the minimal tree (which is its own exercise) | | |
| ▲ | jacquesm 6 days ago | parent [-] | | You will end up writing a technology focused complete history of the world. That tapestry would be absolutely fascinating to be able to navigate and it would also be always out of date. |
| |
| ▲ | Balgair 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes it feels very 'male' centric in a way. Like with clothing, the various stitches that you need to make textiles, each individual stitch method is it's own technology. Like, every knot that gets invented, that's a technology. Knots and stitches and warp and weft, they can only come out of a human mind, they are inventions. But trying to find out the dates there, that's nearly impossible if the data were recorded even. And then most of those textile inventions were done by women who are then again historical dark matter even in the best circumstances. Still, great project and I'd have loved to see it crowdsourced like wikipedia. | |
| ▲ | thaumasiotes 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Had they followed it consistently, they would have excluded certain cultural-practice-based technologies like nixtamalization that made the list. This is an interesting example. It's a technology that's very important for staying alive, but not one that you'd expect to contribute to any kind of progress. It's just something you have to do to corn before eating it. | | |
| ▲ | AlotOfReading 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm a former archaeologist, so my personal definition of technology is extremely expansive. You don't actually need to nixtamalize maize. It's totally edible without and most americans today don't eat nixtamalized corn outside masa. It's just a process to make it more nutritious and importantly, nearly nutritionally complete. For ancient societies, nixtamalizing had a role similar to things like vaccination do for us today. It reduced malnutrition and the economic/social/political effects of disease. The difference I'm trying to highlight is that it probably wasn't understood as such and intentionally done for that purpose. Nixtamalization was culturally encoded as just what you did. Had they had a better understanding of nutrition, they probably would have made more intentional efforts to include the missing vitamins nixtamalization doesn't provide. We often see signs of those missing nutrients in precolumbian skeletons. This extends to a surprisingly wide variety of ancient technology. Most metallurgy probably wasn't understood in the technical sense we think of it today until quite late. We see that with early glass, where people simply didn't understand what they were doing. Ingredients from specific areas would have specific effects, but sometimes didn't for reasons no one at the time understood. Craft communities would standardize on very specific, ritualized processes that simply couldn't be changed because they didn't have a good mechanistic understanding of the variables involved. One of the downstream effects of this is that poaching craftspeople is a viable strategy (they had the specific "recipe") and also that resources like sand from specific areas in syria and egypt were effectively non-fungible for centuries. You had to trade with whoever controlled that area even if you had the craftspeople. | | |
| ▲ | umanwizard 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Craftsmen having secret recipes isn’t quite restricted to the past. According to my drummer friends, nobody knew how to make cymbals as good as Zildjian’s until very, very recently. | |
| ▲ | jacquesm 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | A lot of tradecraft is in the most literal sense tradition, passed from one person to another with no other context than 'it works' and 'this is the way it is done'. The analogies in the software world are probably libraries, design patterns and languages. Each of these embody a lot of knowledge without being - usually - very explicit about the reasons why they are the way they are. Researching those reasons requires a lot of work and most people just want to get to the result step without necessarily understanding why you put the oil in the pan before the egg. They're hungry. | |
| ▲ | thaumasiotes 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Andrew Carnegie wrote that one of the things that gave him an advantage over other steel manufacturers was that he hired a chemist to test ore for iron content. By implication, this was something that had never been done before. | | |
| ▲ | Cordiali 6 days ago | parent [-] | | I just looked it up, and he was born the year after Mendeleev, who'd go on to design/arrange the periodic table of elements. I'm guessing they had traditional assaying techniques, just with less accuracy than a contemporary chemist. | | |
| ▲ | thaumasiotes 6 days ago | parent [-] | | I don't think you're right about that. They judged ore, as the comment above mentions, by the location it came from. They tried standard techniques to process whatever ore they had, and if those techniques led to a bad result, they considered the ore bad. Andrew Carnegie discovered that certain "bad" ore was that way because its iron content was much higher than usual. Secure in the knowledge that this ore was actually better than "good" ore, he developed the techniques to use it. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | umanwizard 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | On the other hand, it’s basically impossible to have large organized civilization in Mesoamerica without hominy[1]. So should hominy be upstream of anything Mesoamericans invented? 1: For anyone whose Nahuatl is a bit rusty: the English word for nixtmalized corn is “hominy”. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | jacquesm 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Almost all science is tightly bound with advances in material science, often the driving each other in alternating steps like interlocking gears. One engine driving those gears is war, another is population growth and education. There are obvious exceptions, such as Math, Philosophy (insert all links lead to philosophy here). But even Math is seeing progress in materials science as a component now (computer derived proofs for instance). Making a really good tech tree is a stupendously hard problem. I once started working on one for a game but gave up once I realized that doing this properly is probably going to take a lifetime or two and there are other things I can do that are more immediately useful. |
| |
| ▲ | ghaff 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Even aside from the big advances, look at things like clothing in the past few decades. Outdoor clothing has changed enormously but so have so many other day-to-day things--a lot of which are about electronics but that's materials-related as well. It's an interesting question. Why couldn't the Romans have invented $X? And the answer is mostly the tech tree. There are probably exceptions around things like germ theory of disease and so forth but it's mostly true. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | drivers99 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They are expecting suggestions for this work in progress. https://www.historicaltechtree.com/about#contributing |
|
| ▲ | otabdeveloper4 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Metallurgy is by far the most important human technology. That's why "copper", "bronze" and "iron" are used to classify ages. |
| |
| ▲ | jacquesm 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | There is no 'most important' human technology. All of it interlocks, and usually the prerequisite steps all need to be followed before you can progress to the next level. I wonder how long it would take given a paper copy of wikipedia (hopefully printed on acid free paper) to get back to a functional technology society. I'm sure it would go faster than the first time around, but I'm not so sure it would be less than a few hundred years. | | |
| ▲ | otabdeveloper4 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Wikipedia is useless for rebooting technological society, it doesn't show where or how to mine the necessary minerals. |
| |
| ▲ | arethuza 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Even more than agriculture? | |
| ▲ | the__alchemist 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Metal has the fortunate process of durability over millenia... we are biased by what we find. |
|
|
| ▲ | Akronymus 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| A lot of those things are incremental improvements that build onto each other, like refining an alloy by a few % many times over to end up with something entirely different. How would one determine what is sufficiently different to deserve a node? But 100% agree, incremental improvements are the vast majority of advances. |
|
| ▲ | the__alchemist 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Unfortunately, a lot of the reasoning behind omissions is that we have lost the majority of information; what we learned was from luck, inference, and unfortunately (because it produces misleading results), selective durability of some items over others. |
|
| ▲ | idkfasayer 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [dead] |
