Why was there progress?
Inspired by this post.
Despite the fact that progress is not constant (its speed varies, even negative), it is usually noted his era – approximately from the beginning of the 19th to the end of the 20th century. It's easy to see the end of this era, just look at the younger generation although for some reason everyone has different reasons: either there is not enough money, then the brains are shrinking from negative selection, or there is a conspiracy.
Progress, strictly speaking, has not ended – it will slow down, but it will not stop. And although this may give the impression to some, slow progress is also progress.
I won’t give you my thoughts about this, but I will give you a “fishing rod” – in order to understand why everything ended, you need to understand why it began.
Briefly
Progress arose with the simultaneous interaction of several factors, and it arose exactly where it arose – in Europe – for a reason.
Natural resources — back then they were still in Europe — they made it possible to introduce new technologies en masse, and not just keep them in the form of prototypes.
Capitalist economy gave resources and economic stability to Europe at the expense of countries plundered in the process of rapid expansion.
Modern gave the mental / psychohistorical basis for progress – he put it at the forefront.
And the most important factor is passionarity European peoples. They had the will and desire to develop, even at great cost.
Europe has overcome several technical regulationswhich is called the era of progress.
Passionarity – the will to fight
I think there is no need to explain that to introduce new technologies (and their rapid implementation provokes new technical regulations) you need a lot of willpower – society does not like changes, regardless of whether they are for the better or for the worse. Imagine the indignation of a huge number of British people who, during the Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries, lost their jobs en masse with all the corresponding consequences.
And so with every technical system – the coming one, for example, threatens society with robotization (not even AI, which is just a cog in this matter).
Europe at that time (approximately 18–20 centuries) was completely different than it is now – I will not go into details, the histories of Russia, Germany, Great Britain and Spain will tell you a lot more. Endless wars… The average passionarity was very high.
For comparison, you can think of India or China.
The first lives within the framework of a caste society, which wildly cuts into passionarity (those who are familiar with it understand), and new technologies are not introduced by Hindus, and even then only in a targeted manner.
The second one began a technological breakthrough only with the advent of the communists (20th century, almost at the end of the era), and they did it with the support of external players (the USSR initially, then “investments” from the West).
It's funny that China much before Europe entered the first technical structure (textile industry). It is assumed that the culture and society of China hampered the achievement of subsequent ones.
Resources are the fuel for the fight
Everything is simpler here – without resources, no matter what technologies, they cannot be introduced en masse, nor can they be supported.
We are lucky in Russia – we have plenty of our own resources, but Europe, even at that time, was in trouble. Perhaps, if Western (and preferably central) Europe were united, and the north of Africa was under control (it was under control in one variation or another from the Roman Empire of the century until the 21st) – the problem of resources would not have arisen, but it would have been fragmented by many peoples
The problem was solved by the genesis and development of capitalism, which is discussed below.
Capitalism – economics for struggle
It’s one thing to be able and be able to do it, another thing to want it. It would be a mistake to say that Europe, and indeed the rest of the world powers of that time, did not wanted expansion – Europe just had it in a special way.
Although it may seem that the principle of the capitalist world system has always been there, it is not. For most of history, as well as in the USSR (and especially in the USSR), world systems were thought of differently.
Nomadic/old sea — control over flows and routes. What was captured was not integrated, but was collected.
Classic/Land – the captured was integrated into the power one way or another. Roughly speaking, what was captured became part of the center.
Capitalist – the captured territories are integrated, but with a special status – depending on it, the amount of resources supplied to the metropolis (center) changes, as well as the terms of delivery.
The autonomy of the integrated countries is preserved, which allows you to expand quickly.Anti-capitalist – captured territories are integrated with a special status – depending on it, the flow of supplies changes V periphery resources center.
The autonomy of the integrated countries is preserved, which allows you to expand quickly.
Capitalism gave resources and stability to the economy of Europe at the expense of plundered countries. Like this.
It would be nice to describe and Modernthat it had such an influence on the people of that time – but here my knowledge would not be enough, and the topic would be very vast and complex – this is not for you to move bags, philosophy!
Finally
Dwelling on huge topics like the era of progress towards education (the author of the inspiring post did this) is tantamount to looking at a giant painting point-blank—you can’t see the mountains behind the rocks. The butterfly effect is a fun topic, but moving mountains requires conditions, not just the fluttering of wings.
