this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2024
32 points (97.1% liked)

Greentext

5389 readers
8 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago (2 children)

My own line of reasoning is that the speed of progress of technological advancement is dependent on the amount of people who can dedicate their lives to doing stuff other than trying to gather enough food and shelter to survive. So for the longest of times basically everyone had to just try to survive and maybe have an idea or two every now and then. Low human population and no-one able to dedicate themselves to innovation means extremely low innovation rate. But those rare times something really useful was developed and passed on to the next generation led to freeing more people to be able to dedicate themselves to innovation and thus increasing the amount of people one human can support with their work effort. This is a positive feedback loop so it has exponentially grown to today where one person's work can support multiple people making theoretically most of humanity free to advance technology.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Your don't need to only rely on reason for that.

It's quite obvious it's true when looking at history.

"Idle hands are the devil's playthings" is a really stupid saying, unless one truly does think of the devil as the Lightbringer.

Honestly the more one reads into history, the more one realises just how progress stifling Christianity has been. (Or Abrahamic monotheism in the first place.)

When the people around modern day Greece started having extra fish and wine so some of the ppl could take it easy and just chilax, they basically came up with the central ideas that are still central to our modern society. Democracy, morality, freedom, etc.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

"something doesn't add up"

yes it does. that's exactly what it is you're describing. all of it adding up. as always people struggle with exponential growth because it's not very intuitive.

my favorite way to demonstrate the unintuitive nature of exponential growth is this question:

there's a pond, and a lily pad on it. the number of lily pads double every day on the pond. so on day 1 there's one, day 2 there's two, and on day 3 there's four... etc.

if it takes 120 days for the pond to get completely covered in lily pads, what day was only half of it covered?

!the answer is 119.!<

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (3 children)

If it takes 120 days to be covered thats a huge fucking pond.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

The pond is the Pacific Ocean.

Let's see...2^120 is 1.329•10^36 lily pads. Say 15cm diameter for a lily pad, that's got an area of 177cm^2. That's 10.3•10^38 cm^2.

The surface area of the Pacific Ocean is only 1.652•10^18 cm^2.

We're boned.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

that is purposeful. it wouldn't make much of a point if it took 10 days.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (3 children)

I mean sure it would? That's rhe whole point is that exponential growth quickly reaches massive quantities. Like literally after 120 days I doubt that many lilypads would fit on earth.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

I think the lilypads might need to be smaller than an atomic nucleus? Someone check my math. But still larger than a Planck length, so it is fine.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I’m not sure what lily pads so I went with the largest which have around 7.069m^2^ of surface area or 0.0000007069km^2^ surface area.

Earth has a surface area of 510,064,472km^2^

After 120 days of doubling we have

6.64614x10^35^ * 7.069x10^-6^ = 4.6982Ex10^30^

So you are correct but it’s also around 23x the surface area of the sun.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

I love how their goof helped further show how humans suck with exponential numbers

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

I don't disagree with your explanation of exponential growth or how it does answer for the speed at which we went from, say the magnifying glass to the hubble space telescope.

However, the exponential growth alone model does have a floor: it presumes that there was some kind of push, drive or want for progress. Like, as if there was a destination we're supposed to end up at and its just a case of how long it took to get there. It excludes the idea that people might not have wanted to.

People didn't want to toil all day in someone else's farm. In smaller numbers, on good land, people didn't have to do very much to get the food they needed. Its only when farming became developed and consistent enough that those living there had the numbers to go kill the people who lived on the good land.

Once we'd been, for all intense and purpose, domesticated by grain, "progress" was inevitable.

Another example would be the industrial revolution. People ask why it was so much faster here in the UK than France. It wasn't because of a desire for progress. Its that French people had a natural aversion to being worked for 12 hours a day in hell-like factories and workhouses. I mean, British people did too but they had mostly just been kicked off the common land they had lived on for centuries. So, they had no other place to go and begging and not having a job for more than three days was made illegal, punishable by being sent to to workhouses. At one points, they had more British soldiers fighting the riots at home than they had fighting napoleon.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Not entirely true, England just had a shit ton of trade from its colonies, and better trade led to more intense interconnection, and wealth which in the developing industrial method of production led to an explosion of capital. It was to the point the Rhodes (Rhodesia the British colony was named after him) called expansion an existential question for England, because the explosion of capital had to go somewhere. What’s nuts about capital is that it produces more capital using ever more advanced industries and methods of production. England with massive markets and capital available was able to do this to an insane degree. But still, France is something like the third wealthiest nation after US and England, so they did not do too bad for themselves, and their capital still had a field day in Africa. Highly recommend reading Marx or Lenin on imperialism, it’s legit the whole Marxist thesis how modern industry came about, and for Marx, he literally wrote Capital based on data in England. It’s absolutely fascinating how society and the economy entered a seismic shift with the advent of Captialism

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

None of that explains the difference in time it took for each country to industrialise. For it to, would be to claim it was capitalism itself that did so, meaning the claim is that it wouldn't have happened were it not for capitalism which wouldn't be right.

Thanks but I've read das kapital too and, you'll find on reflection, that, far from refuting what i said, it corroborates it fully. In particular, the chapters where he talks about the acts of enclosure. Around chapter 26 or 27, if I remember correctly.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That most people spend most of their time passively reading celebrity news on tiny black rectangle tells you everything you need to know about the rate of human progress.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

But without eleytic rectangle humans are bored... so why no electric rectangle before?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Exponential growth, thats about all there is to it. Advancing from clacking rocks to hunting deer is actually already a huge advancement.

Those 190k years in caves however werent non-advancing. A lot of advancements happened over those years.

Fires, wheels, knot tying, ceramics, pottery, grains, hunting, animal husbandry, medicine, language, art, music, rope...

Also, 10k years is after we gained writing of various forms to store information.

Keep in mind thats at the stage of shit like egypt, the great pyramids, etc. We were waaaaay beyond "cavemen" at that point. We already had trade routes, cities, nations, countless languages, doctors, etc.

The big issue was before that point, all our forms of storing information were just not able to stand the test of time very well, is all. We stopped being "cavemen" way before that mark though.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago

you know how sometimes you're trying to solve a puzzle but you're stuck at the very beginning? You can spend hours looking at the puzzle and get nowhere. But then you spot it! the one step or the one logical conclusion you needed to advance, and you start blasting through the puzzle

it's that

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

anon assumes development of science and tech is linear

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

It's exponential. The gap between 200k years ago and 10k years ago is pretty similar to the gap between 20k years ago and 1k years ago, or the difference between 2k years ago and 100 years ago. On a logarithmic scale, same distance, roughly the same delta in terms of the technology available

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (7 children)

Oldest stone axes are like a million years.

We're not the first smart species.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

start rolling down hill

going slow

go faster

hmm

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

about 70 years after human had its first flight, we stepped on the moon.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)
  • first powered flight on a heavier than air craft. The first humans flew in 1783 on a hot air balloon.
[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

This actually depends on your stance on oriental man-carrying kites, which have historical backing from the 6th century AD, but historians debate the exact standards of evidence.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It was mostly agriculture and dense human settlements, I think. Once you have someone farming enough food for themself plus someone else, that "someone else" can do something else to progress technology. Sometimes with things that allow that farmer to produce enough food for three people, then five, so goes on.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

guess what happens next

more food and more people who came to buy the food now you need people to help make the food and keep track of the sales and now you need houses for people to live in and people to make the houses, and now there's more people and they invent things, which makes things better and more people come and there's more farming and more people to make more things for more people and now there's business, money, writing, laws, power

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

coming soon to a dank river valley near you

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (4 children)

The answer is probably language. Before advanced language was developed, there wasn't a good way to pass along any knowledge that was gained by an individual.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Language is much older than just 10k years. There's a few reasons to think that language might have developed with erectus, which could make language 10x older than the 'human specie', according to anon.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

That's why i said advanced language. Lots of animals have language. Crows have language

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

I thought it was because proper farming.

Like being able to support larger groups of people, where individuals could specialize in other things than hunting, gathering and whatever else was keeping the early humans busy.

On the other hand I've heard we've been possibly farming long before 10,000 BCE.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

And storage / dissemination of that language.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Thats why the fediverse is the next step in evolution.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Brainrotmaxxing

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Let's carve our memes into stone and bury them for future archaeologists.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Shit can get pretty wild when you start writing stuff down

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Memes are pretty radical

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

language => written down language => widespread literacy => affordable information (printing press) => internet => hypertext websites => search engines.

we went from struggeling to keep our knowledge arround to having access to almost the entire sum of human knowledge in a mostly convenient manner.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

A lot of the comments are talking about writing being the game changer but it took generations of selective breeding crops and livestock to make them viable for domestication. We haven't found any evidence of domestication prior to about 12k years ago in archeology or genetics. There were many civilizations who built large cities and never needed a writing system.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

The Pleistocene (2,580,000 - 11,700 years ago) was fucking crazy cold and had a hella unstable climate. Not a nice predictable environment.

load more comments
view more: next ›