AHC: How far can the Western Civilization technology advances before 1900?

[stevep]

I didn't get that specifically from Orion's Arm, I just think that it seems logical that the people of thousands of years in the future may be quite different in a number of ways from people today. I tried to cover my posterior by listing several different options and using "might".

I agree that Orion's Arm is heavily informed by technologies and social currents that have been trendy in the last decade or so, but that is a problem with every projection of the future, and the reason why such projections are rarely very accurate. It seems that the development of human society and technology is too complex a subject for any one person or small group, no matter how intelligent, to predict with much reliability.

Guys

Fully agree. Given how rapidly technology and culture has changed in the leading areas and that in many ways the rate of changes seems to be increasing SF stories on possible futures are more likely to under-estimate rather than over-estimate the level of changes. [Provided we manage to avoid really buggering things up in some way or another].

Steve

 

[LordKalvan]

It seems that the development of human society and technology is too complex a subject for any one person or small group, no matter how intelligent, to predict with much reliability.

IMHO, there have been and there certainly will be discontinuity points in human history. To successfully predict the trend after a discontinuity point is obviously impossible: to make an easy comparison, the hunter-gatherers of late Glaciation had no possibility to predict the future after the agricultural revolution

 

[jkay]

You're being a little small-minded in your title. The tech lead has moved around over centuries, and will keep moving. It started in the Middle East, China, and India, and stayed all places long. Then there was a period when everybody, globally had the slows. Then it came back in the Med under the largely free Islam. Only since the Renaissance has it been in what we call the West. Right now, it's distributing all over the world as we move to a more multipolar world. It might well even move offworld in a few centuries.

My favorite scenario for maximizing progress is continuous free government. Freedom has always had the best innovation rate. The problem that arises is that free states seem to grow tired of it over over centuries and move to aristocracy and monarchy like Rome, Greece, and various former Indian republics. So, you need to have free colonization.

So, how much faster could we've gone? I tend to think we could've reached alternate history fora 8-12 centuries earlier. But that's a total guess.

The reality of Islam long being a tech leader is certainly a novelty to many; I was always taught that Islam got all its converts at the sword. The reality that the Christian states were the ones killing even over religious sect. In the meantime, the Caliphates and Ottomans had broad freedoms, including the most religious tolerance of the era. Islamic states were immigration targets and got their conquests by the similar institutions the Roman Republic used to conquer so much and US used to ethnically cleanse so much. They all shared checks and balances, wide freedoms, and voting.

 

[Mauser]

You're being a little small-minded in your title. The tech lead has moved around over centuries, and will keep moving. It started in the Middle East, China, and India, and stayed all places long. Then there was a period when everybody, globally had the slows. Then it came back in the Med under the largely free Islam. Only since the Renaissance has it been in what we call the West. Right now, it's distributing all over the world as we move to a more multipolar world. It might well even move offworld in a few centuries.

My favorite scenario for maximizing progress is continuous free government. Freedom has always had the best innovation rate. The problem that arises is that free states seem to grow tired of it over over centuries and move to aristocracy and monarchy like Rome, Greece, and various former Indian republics. So, you need to have free colonization.

So, how much faster could we've gone? I tend to think we could've reached alternate history fora 8-12 centuries earlier. But that's a total guess.

The reality of Islam long being a tech leader is certainly a novelty to many; I was always taught that Islam got all its converts at the sword. The reality that the Christian states were the ones killing even over religious sect. In the meantime, the Caliphates and Ottomans had broad freedoms, including the most religious tolerance of the era. Islamic states were immigration targets and got their conquests by the similar institutions the Roman Republic used to conquer so much and US used to ethnically cleanse so much. They all shared checks and balances, wide freedoms, and voting.

I'm really sorry with how I choose to word my title. I'm interested also with many civilization technology including that of Islam, for I understand it very well that Islamic technology and advances in the field of Mathematics and Science created a strong framework for now so called Western technology. The most notable one I could think of is the Arabic numeral and Algebra though unquestionably there are more inventions that the Islamic world found other than that.

I wonder what will happen if the Islamic civilization could develop mass printing press before the West can? Considering their already established technology long before the Renaissance. I'm thinking of perhaps a Muslim Enlightenment age, what do you think? (A good start for TL)

 

[Devolved]

I wonder what will happen if the Islamic civilization could develop mass printing press before the West can? Considering their already established technology long before the Renaissance. I'm thinking of perhaps a Muslim Enlightenment age, what do you think? (A good start for TL)

The problem with a Muslim Enlightenment Age is that the Muslims already thought they were enlightened.

The Enlightenment in Europe and the opening up of free thought and scientific enquiry was based on questioning the established order of the universe and debating what kind of a world would be better. Including a non Christian world. In the Muslim world any kind of thinking that goes against what is stated in the Koran (or Quran) is not acceptable.

Technological development in the Arab world was already slowing to a crawl before the Renaissance in Europe. By the 18th century it's economy had declined a lot relative to the West and that was before Western colonialism impacted on them.

 

[Mauser]

The problem with a Muslim Enlightenment Age is that the Muslims already thought they were enlightened.

The Enlightenment in Europe and the opening up of free thought and scientific enquiry was based on questioning the established order of the universe and debating what kind of a world would be better. Including a non Christian world. In the Muslim world any kind of thinking that goes against what is stated in the Koran (or Quran) is not acceptable.

Technological development in the Arab world was already slowing to a crawl before the Renaissance in Europe. By the 18th century it's economy had declined a lot relative to the West and that was before Western colonialism impacted on them.

But isn't it true that Islam endorses advance in knowledge? If not then how can their technology advances quite far before the European were able to outrace them? Muslim scientists and scholars even understand that the Earth was not the center of the Universe long before the Europe had any idea what they were at. Moreover what impresses me is that they were able to describe it in a Mathematical terms.

 

[AtriumCarceris]

I only have two suggestions.

Change the middle ages so people worked together more, and increase access to written works. Several things were discovered several times over either because the relevant books were lost for a long time, or people weren't talking to each other enough. Earlier printing press might be nice, or even just earlier paper manufacturing in Europe.

And kill the Renaissance. I'm not a big fan of the renaissance. Lots of religious wars and persecutions and famines and deaths all around.

 

[carlton_bach]

The problem with a Muslim Enlightenment Age is that the Muslims already thought they were enlightened.

The Enlightenment in Europe and the opening up of free thought and scientific enquiry was based on questioning the established order of the universe and debating what kind of a world would be better. Including a non Christian world. In the Muslim world any kind of thinking that goes against what is stated in the Koran (or Quran) is not acceptable.

Technological development in the Arab world was already slowing to a crawl before the Renaissance in Europe. By the 18th century it's economy had declined a lot relative to the West and that was before Western colonialism impacted on them.

So - Enlightenment thinkers were Christians thinking outside the Christian paradigmn, but Muslims can't do that because the Muslim paradigm forbids the from thinking outsisde it. Got that.

 

[Devolved]

But isn't it true that Islam endorses advance in knowledge? If not then how can their technology advances quite far before the European were able to outrace them? Muslim scientists and scholars even understand that the Earth was not the center of the Universe long before the Europe had any idea what they were at. Moreover what impresses me is that they were able to describe it in a Mathematical terms.

Muslim scientists achieved many things but they were all within the limits of the Quran and the associated sayings of the Prophet.

Christians in the West looked to more than the Bible as a source of Authority. The Christian view of the cosmos was based on Ptolemy who had nothing to do with the Bible. Much of politics was based on Roman and Greek ideas. These ideas could ultimately be challenged logically and Christians could accept them without losing their faith.

Islam has 'more angles covered' than Christianity. It is more detailed (moslty written and codified in a generation instead of compiled over centuries like Christianty).

 

[Mr Qwerty]

Islam has 'more angles covered' than Christianity. It is more detailed (moslty written and codified in a generation instead of compiled over centuries like Christianty).

Right. Muhammad wrote the Koran with the intention of avoiding ambiguity, so all questions would be answered. Ambiguity is all over the Old and New Testaments. Anybody who seriously studies them will eventually come to doubt their literal truth, and doubt is the beginning of science.

I suspect the Western European tradition of separate institutions of Church and State have something to do with it, too.

 

[TyranicusMaximus]

Right. Muhammad wrote the Koran with the intention of avoiding ambiguity, so all questions would be answered. Ambiguity is all over the Old and New Testaments. Anybody who seriously studies them will eventually come to doubt their literal truth, and doubt is the beginning of science.

I suspect the Western European tradition of separate institutions of Church and State have something to do with it, too.

Where do Sufi orders fit in all that, hmm?

 

[archaeogeek]

Where do Sufi orders fit in all that, hmm?

A myth perpetrated by muslim fundamentalists so they could have a catholic church expy to go Calvin on
Ditto for heterodox sects in general.

 

[carlton_bach]

I suspect the Western European tradition of separate institutions of Church and State have something to do with it, too.

I suspect it has more to do with the fact that the state already existed when the church was constituted. But yes, the fact that Christian scripture was not written with the purpose of regulating a society probably has something to do with it.

Incidentally, nobody who seriously, academically studied the Bible was required to believe its literal truth. The church fathers already dispensed with that one (though people try to keep resurrecting it for some reason).

 

[Devolved]

I suspect it has more to do with the fact that the state already existed when the church was constituted. But yes, the fact that Christian scripture was not written with the purpose of regulating a society probably has something to do with it.

Incidentally, nobody who seriously, academically studied the Bible was required to believe its literal truth. The church fathers already dispensed with that one (though people try to keep resurrecting it for some reason).

Yes with some exceptions Christian Scholars saw the Bible in terms of humans looking at God/Jesus/miracles as true eye witness accounts. Like all eye witness accounts they are subject to interpretation with a margin of error but still funadamentally true. (hope that is not too confusing)

They don't see it as God dictating the words to his minions in the style of a boss dictating a word for word memo to his secretary.

 

[Falecius]

Muslim scientists achieved many things but they were all within the limits of the Quran and the associated sayings of the Prophet.

Christians in the West looked to more than the Bible as a source of Authority. The Christian view of the cosmos was based on Ptolemy who had nothing to do with the Bible. Much of politics was based on Roman and Greek ideas. These ideas could ultimately be challenged logically and Christians could accept them without losing their faith.

Islam has 'more angles covered' than Christianity. It is more detailed (moslty written and codified in a generation instead of compiled over centuries like Christianty).

Not entirely true. Qur'an had a definitive text established within a generation, but the whole religious corpus, including the important sayings of the Prophet, took much longer to get the form it has now.
Aristotle, Plato, Ptolemy and the like were intellectual autorities in the Muslim world too. Islam did not start as an all encompassing "totalitarian" system of established knowledge about everything in the world, and actually it used to be far less hostile towards intellectual inquiry about how thing work in THIS world than Christianity.
There's plenty of well-known sayings by Muhammad about that. Of course, scientific ideas that directly challenge a Quranic verse would be troublesome. In Muslim Middle Ages OTL, it was the case with the created vs. eternal universe dispute.
But Islam proved to be quite flexible in general, as long as Quranic hermeneutics allowed for a non-literal approach to the Text to some extent. In general, unorthodox ideas were permitted with restrictions as long as they did not lead to social and political turmoil.

 

[kasumigenx]

I'm really sorry with how I choose to word my title. I'm interested also with many civilization technology including that of Islam, for I understand it very well that Islamic technology and advances in the field of Mathematics and Science created a strong framework for now so called Western technology. The most notable one I could think of is the Arabic numeral and Algebra though unquestionably there are more inventions that the Islamic world found other than that.

I wonder what will happen if the Islamic civilization could develop mass printing press before the West can? Considering their already established technology long before the Renaissance. I'm thinking of perhaps a Muslim Enlightenment age, what do you think? (A good start for TL)

Printing of Books started in East Asia..I think it was the Mongol Conquests that made Europe very powerful in OTL...

Of course Europe can be advanced and be progressive earlier without the Mongol conquests but not more than East Asia.

 

[Devolved]

Not entirely true. Qur'an had a definitive text established within a generation, but the whole religious corpus, including the important sayings of the Prophet, took much longer to get the form it has now.
Aristotle, Plato, Ptolemy and the like were intellectual autorities in the Muslim world too. Islam did not start as an all encompassing "totalitarian" system of established knowledge about everything in the world, and actually it used to be far less hostile towards intellectual inquiry about how thing work in THIS world than Christianity.
There's plenty of well-known sayings by Muhammad about that. Of course, scientific ideas that directly challenge a Quranic verse would be troublesome. In Muslim Middle Ages OTL, it was the case with the created vs. eternal universe dispute.
But Islam proved to be quite flexible in general, as long as Quranic hermeneutics allowed for a non-literal approach to the Text to some extent. In general, unorthodox ideas were permitted with restrictions as long as they did not lead to social and political turmoil.

Muslim societies seemed to be at the their strongest at the beginning when most of their subjects were either non muslim or recent muslim converts. I am sure there are some exceptions but it seems that Islam stops developing the more Islamic it becomes.

Therefore, it makes sense that Islam would be flexible before all of the sayings of the prophet and the verses of the Qu'ran were fully compiled and accepted as 'gospel'.

 

[papermario]

If you go with Europe, save Rome, stop the Dark Ages, prevent the plague, whack the Khans. Bland and obvious.

A lot of good ideas from Central Asia did make it over to Europe. Perhaps if Chinese ideas both made it over and were accepted in Europe earlier you could push technology forward.

All I'll really say here is the "religion halts science" idea is wrong. Destroying Christianity or Islam or whatever dominant religion in your timeline will not help technology further. Christianity and Islam encouraged betterment and required the need to spread, resulting in a need to improve technology. Look at China, it was quite ahead of Europe for a while but had no need to improve because it saw itself as already perfect and thus declined.

 

[jkay]

Devolved wrote:
The Enlightenment in Europe and the opening up of free thought and scientific enquiry was based on questioning the established order of the universe and debating what kind of a world would be better. Including a non Christian world. In the Muslim world any kind of thinking that goes against what is stated in the Koran (or Quran) is not acceptable.

If the Muslims were such religious slowpokes, how'd they invent algebra and the university?

Meanwhile, during Islam's early centuries, in our West, scholars were widely tortured or burned . . . for any reason atall, including noble amusement. Scholars, thinkers, and engineers only got support through noble sponsorship, needing constant brownnosing to maintain.

Technological development in the Arab world was already slowing to a crawl before the Renaissance in Europe. By the 18th century it's economy had declined a lot relative to the West and that was before Western colonialism impacted on them.

Yeah, but that doesn't keep every word of what I wrote from being true. Every great culture has its in the sun, and that was the Muslims'. And, during that same period, the western cultures were horror on its scholars and peasants. Even monks had to give elaborate justifications and mostly glorify Christ; and, cloister structure kept books away from the unwashed even after it was no longer needed after the Dark Ages.


Importantly, as most Muslims will tell you, Iran and Saudi Arabia are poor exemplars of Muslim ways. Mohammed called for freedom. Iran supports forbidden terrorism. The Sunni Saudis should also be electing their leaders, at least ala Loya Jirga.

 

[Devolved]

If the Muslims were such religious slowpokes, how'd they invent algebra and the university?

Meanwhile, during Islam's early centuries, in our West, scholars were widely tortured or burned . . . for any reason atall, including noble amusement. Scholars, thinkers, and engineers only got support through noble sponsorship, needing constant brownnosing to maintain.
Yeah, but that doesn't keep every word of what I wrote from being true. Every great culture has its in the sun, and that was the Muslims'. And, during that same period, the western cultures were horror on its scholars and peasants. Even monks had to give elaborate justifications and mostly glorify Christ; and, cloister structure kept books away from the unwashed even after it was no longer needed after the Dark Ages.


Importantly, as most Muslims will tell you, Iran and Saudi Arabia are poor exemplars of Muslim ways. Mohammed called for freedom. Iran supports forbidden terrorism. The Sunni Saudis should also be electing their leaders, at least ala Loya Jirga.

I think I said that Muslim countries were at their best in the early stages. Algebra was in the earlier centuries not later.

Also muslims are always pointing at other Muslims and saying they are poor exemplars of Muslim ways.

I have yet to hear of a current Muslim society that is held in high regard as a universally accepted symbol of true Islam.