AHC: Make Technology advance as quickly as possible

[water123]

With a POD after mental modernity of Homo Sapiens (therefore, no Neanderthal World and there still has to be an ice age), advance technology as fast as possible.

My thought is to have an agricultural revolution across the Shebelle River as soon as possible. The Shebelle is an extremely fertile river in Somalia, thus near where Humans originated, and thus would be a suitable catalyst to growing foodstuffs. Really, the sooner that farming and cities become better to live in than being a nomadic hunter-gatherer, the better. A fertility cult would not hurt things either. Then have a group of hunter gatherers become kind of annoying to them, to the point where a diligent despot would want to keep up with how many cattle were taken that day, but not to the point of wiping out the city. It doesn't technically even have to be alphabetic, though it would be nice. Then have a city-state get sacked by a group of extreme nomads who carry away tablets and such across the antediluvian (as in hyper ancient) world.

What would a world that "teched up" this fast look like? What would the cultures be like?

 

[EmperorOfTheNorthSea]

I think if instead of the cultivation of wild grains in the fertile crescent during the younger drias I think a seafaring nomadic culture reliant on fishing would jump start technology better.

Mostly because an increase in the ability to sea fare = more cultures and technology get exchanged. More mobility for early humans the quicker the Bronze age can get into full thrust.

Sooner or later Agriculture as we know it will pop up, even if it has to be imported from china after many, many, many years

 

[Thesaurus Rex]

I think if instead of the cultivation of wild grains in the fertile crescent during the younger drias I think a seafaring nomadic culture reliant on fishing would jump start technology better.

Mostly because an increase in the ability to sea fare = more cultures and technology get exchanged. More mobility for early humans the quicker the Bronze age can get into full thrust.

Sooner or later Agriculture as we know it will pop up, even if it has to be imported from china after many, many, many years

Existing populations and their histories have shown that idea might not work very well.

But they could certainly act as catalysts for extreme and potentially positive change for land-based civilizations in the long run.

 

[Magnum]

idea #1
Pyrrhus conquers Italy, building a kingdom for himself. The Mediterranean continues to be dominated by the successor Hellenistic successor kingdoms for many centuries to come, with innovation thriving far more than during Rome's rule.

idea #2
There is no collapse of late antiquity, with the Roman state holding up well to both the 3rd century crisis and the Great Migration. Best way to achieve this IMO is Alexander Severus balkanizing Persia during their civil war AND conquering Germania when he had the chance AND reforming the army AND leaving a capable heir. A Europe with an increasingly monetized, inter-connected, highly urban society has basically skipped more than half a millennium of decline. They develop better sailing techniques and proto-capitalism, and go on to colonize the Americas and establish global trade routes around the year 1000

idea #3
No (or different) Confucianism, disunited Mongols and an industrial revolution in a surviving Song China.

idea #4
combine #2 and #3, with Roman Europe bringing a global trade network to China and Song China exporting the industrial revolution to Europe

 

[water123]

Existing populations and their histories have shown that idea might not work very well.

But they could certainly act as catalysts for extreme and potentially positive change for land-based civilizations in the long run.

I mean, the Maori also were like this and they went on to become arguably the most advanced culture on Oceania.

It might really depend on what is where and who lives where. The "Fertile Crescent" might be somewhere else entirely.

 

[PaleoT]

SNIP

By far, I think your hypothesis on how to speed technological advancement is the best possible way-- archeological evidence and historical fact show clearly that technology increased rapidly during the Neolithic age and the rise of agriculture. The Mesolithic and Paleolithic ages before it advanced a lot slower largely due to the fact that agriculture helped spur technological advances as it allowed people to settle down and congregate in larger groups so that ideas could flow more freely. The effects of the agriculture revolution happening this early would be HUGE. Thats a million or so years of extra technological innovation at the very least a Neolithic enviroment, and lookng how technology progressed exponentially from that point we would as a species be much more advanced than we were today, ignoring some huge calamity. A million years is more than long enough to develope a space spanning civilization considering the fact that since OTL neolithic revolution we've reached the moon in a mere 12,000 years. Culturally? Unrecognizable. We can't predict a world if it came from such an explosive butterfly.

If you want to boost technological development while still having the world be recognizable, my best POD would be to stop the Chinese from going into isolation or stop the Dark Ages. Either one, really. The soonest POD that I think could have a major effect is have Edison kick the bucket so he doesn't hinder Tesla and his AC Power, albeit that would only be a marginal improvement compared to the much earlier ideas.

 

[Thesaurus Rex]

I mean, the Maori also were like this and they went on to become arguably the most advanced culture on Oceania.

It might really depend on what is where and who lives where. The "Fertile Crescent" might be somewhere else entirely.

What do you define as "advanced"? Socially? Politically? Technologically? The Maori had some rather refined military structure and strategic technology, but their political structure was not very centralized and didn't hold a great deal of power and control. By the time the Europeans came along there was a lot less emphasis on sailing and most sails were of the temporary, removable kind. I'd argue that there are cultures that are a lot more complex in multiple ways than pre-contact NZ, especially since many concepts of Oceania include much of Indonesia, but the island cultures of the South Pacific also developed to some interesting complexities.

Still, the rate of development in all of those places, compared to the world as a whole, are still incredibly slow. So I don't think seafaring is the best factor for technological development.

Of course, once you actually have a well-off civilization (or two, or three), then yes, seafaring absolutely is an important factor in increasing the prosperity and technological development for civilization (but not the only one -- China developed largely independent from seafaring and invented technologies long before anyone else). That's why the Mediterranean was such a goldmine for development and complex states.

 

[Arkenfolm]

There is a difference between having something recognisably our own world (as in, our own Neolithic Revolution happens) and something where agriculture and other modern tech evolves far, far earlier. If we have agriculture evolve millennia before OTL, especially with the last of the Ice Ages in the way, then we're dealing with something far, far different than anything OTL. 2016 (going by a solar calendar) might as well be the year we invent FTL travel. 2016 might be the year we defeat some dastardly alien species who threatens all of us. Or conversely, that's when the last surviving human communities of some nuclear war are snuffed our due to something or another. That many years is huge time for technology.

So I think that keeping things recognisable is huge, at least if you want to have concepts like "Chinese" or "European" exist at all. And I propose what I've written before--just advance sanitation and microbiology more, along with earlier discovery of the smallpox vaccine and such. With a revolution in this field, you'll see more people around, which hopefully results in more technology discovered. I think that with a POD at 1 AD, we can easily be 50 years ahead in terms of technology, that isn't too much to ask for?

 

[FellowNerd]

There is a difference between having something recognisably our own world (as in, our own Neolithic Revolution happens) and something where agriculture and other modern tech evolves far, far earlier. If we have agriculture evolve millennia before OTL, especially with the last of the Ice Ages in the way, then we're dealing with something far, far different than anything OTL. 2016 (going by a solar calendar) might as well be the year we invent FTL travel. 2016 might be the year we defeat some dastardly alien species who threatens all of us. Or conversely, that's when the last surviving human communities of some nuclear war are snuffed our due to something or another. That many years is huge time for technology.

So I think that keeping things recognisable is huge, at least if you want to have concepts like "Chinese" or "European" exist at all. And I propose what I've written before--just advance sanitation and microbiology more, along with earlier discovery of the smallpox vaccine and such. With a revolution in this field, you'll see more people around, which hopefully results in more technology discovered. I think that with a POD at 1 AD, we can easily be 50 years ahead in terms of technology, that isn't too much to ask for?

Basically anything that increases population will spur technology. More people, means more possible solutions/people to get resources

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

idea #1
Pyrrhus conquers Italy, building a kingdom for himself. The Mediterranean continues to be dominated by the successor Hellenistic successor kingdoms for many centuries to come, with innovation thriving far more than during Rome's rule.

Really like this idea. We could see gigantic Hellenistic warships! But I think that Pyrrhus never had a change to conquer Italy. Better have Alexander conquer Italy.

 

[Skallagrim]

Really like this idea. We could see gigantic Hellenistic warships! But I think that Pyrrhus never had a change to conquer Italy. Better have Alexander conquer Italy.

I agree that Alexander would be the better option for this, and by far. In fact, for a more-or-less recognisable world that enjoys greater tech advancement, Alexander living (considerably) longer is your best bet by far. Assuming, of course, that he manages to keep his empire together. Even if it still fractures after his death, if he manges to unite everything from the Pillars of Herakles to the Indus River in a supersized Hellenistic sphere (also including Arabia), the Hellenistic Age gets put on steroids. Furthermore, Alexander was all about fostering contact and cultural cross-fertilisation, so: exchange of ideas to a greater extent than in OTL. Think philosophical and mathematical ideas (which could indirectly help tech), but also the quicker spreading of actual inventions. (Aided by the fact that he planned to (re)build and greatly expand the network or roads inside his domain. If he gets to do that, it's a big boon to safe travel, which helps trade and thus the spread of innovations.)

So, yeah. There are obviously the really early ideas, like the one @Aqua817 proposed. And those can work, and would almost certainly lead to a much earlier development of technology in general. But it's really difficult (if not outright impossible) to even approximate the likely course of development. For a more 'recognisable' world, I'd go with Alexander. (Heck, I won't lie: I'll always go with Alexander. I'm a fan, sue me. )

 

[Thesaurus Rex]

Really like this idea. We could see gigantic Hellenistic warships! But I think that Pyrrhus never had a change to conquer Italy. Better have Alexander conquer Italy.

That TL's already been done -- around 2,000 years ago

 

[fortyseven]

Alexander the Great lives to old age and makes Buddhism the state religion.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

That TL's already been done -- around 2,000 years ago

But in that scenario, Alexander loses against Rome.

 

[Mike Stearns]

Alexander the Great lives to old age and makes Buddhism the state religion.

Now, that would be interesting.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

Frankly, I think the best way to achieve it would be to change Ancient Egypt. The Nile is great for creating food, but it is a maddening that Ancient Egypt didn't really seem to change all that much, for centuries.

So I posit that instead of uniting Egypt around a Pharaoh that isn't divine - and eschew the Pantheon for a single deity/no deity philosophy that prizes discussion over ideas than feuds over dogma. I.e. Create an Egyptian Philosopher class (I apologise if they had one, but lord knows I never heard of it). But make it Greek-style, open, theatrical, popular.

Egypt is unusual because it is reasonably easy to defend as most of it is centred around the Nile - which creates the stability in which Natural Philosophy can flourish. With that comes scientific advancement and political/philosophical theory. Chances are that a philosophy will emerge that is expansionist, combine that with strong Natural Philosophy and you have an advanced Egypt that tries to keep itself ahead of the curve, and expand overseas - which its defensible heartland should enable. Short of an army suited to the desert (which Egypt should be able to produce), Egypt isn't that easy to conquer in its early days.

<worry>I won't lie, my head does sort of worry that this leads to a sort of Egyptian Ubermensch philosophy, but that isn't assured.</worry>

But what Egypt seemed to lack for me was strong debate on philosophy, which left it wealthy, but unwilling to innovate. An Egypt with overseas territory, and a strong natural philosophy tradition however, can focus on solving problems in their new territories, repeatedly - with the wealth of Egypt to basically fund universities centuries if not millennia early.

Add in Red Sea ports - it happened in OTL with a religious reverence for the Nile, so I can't see why it wouldn't happen ITTL - and then the Egyptians can debate and discuss with their trade partners. Including Punt. (Gotta reference that Somalia idea).

This should lead to a very strong Mediterranean/Indian Ocean culture that can create a vast network of colonies and trade that funnel through the wealthy heartland.

This does ignore China, which is another good location to choose from, but it is less easy to secure the North China Plain than it is to secure the Nile Valley, and the logistics of China are slower than the logistics of the Med.

 

[Zireael]

So I posit that instead of uniting Egypt around a Pharaoh that isn't divine - and eschew the Pantheon for a single deity/no deity philosophy that prizes discussion over ideas than feuds over dogma. I.e. Create an Egyptian Philosopher class (I apologise if they had one, but lord knows I never heard of it).

Run those two sentences by me again, please. I don't get what the uniting and the pharaoh and the pantheon have to do with philosophy. Ancient Greece had a pantheon of deities AND philosophy, after all.

 

[Mike Stearns]

@RogueTraderEnthusiast, Pharaonic Egypt already had an ubermensch philosophy. The Egyptians believed that the proper order of the world was with Egypt on top of everything. Royal tomb paintings explicitly bear this out. The only wall art that acceptable for Pharaoh's tomb was the king of Egypt kicking ass.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

Run those two sentences by me again, please. I don't get what the uniting and the pharaoh and the pantheon have to do with philosophy. Ancient Greece had a pantheon of deities AND philosophy, after all.

God, I'll have to go and edit that. I missed that mess of writing.

1) Uniting around a Pharaoh that isn't divine removes the idea of divinity from merit/deserving. You don't need to be divine to rule, there is no divine mandate, etc. Pharaoh is literally the guy in charge, because he has shown himself to be the best, or selected by "the best". The choice of heir could be anyone, a talented General, the youngest son, etc. (I'm not so naive as to think that nepotism would be destroyed, but at least this prevents the "The heir must be from my family because divine blood" aspect of deciding the heir). It could even be their preferred Philosopher if they so wished. But with Pharaoh being divine, and tied to a strong priesthood that monopolises education - I can't see much room for those who challenge the faith and its explanation. This isn't a problem if the faith is interested in research and change, but it doesn't appear to be so in Egypt IOTL.

2) Reducing the importance of faith in Egyptian life means that those who would argue over dogma (i.e. the Priesthood) have lesser importance than IOTL. Since so much education in Egypt was done by priests, I'd contend that this made learning dogma was made more important than challenging it. Making them less prominent means others could make more strides into education, such as irreligious or even heretical/heathenous thinkers. Got to mix it up!

3) Greece is a perfect example of how it could work. Philosophers and Priests were not the same people (as far as I know), and philosophers were often chosen to educate in preference to priests. I'd want to skew education in the same way in Egypt. That way ideas are repeatedly challenged, and solutions are less "The floods are bad because Pharaoh has upset the gods" to, "I have no idea sir, perhaps we should go try and figure this out, may I take some men to go upriver and see what may have happened?" Possibly not the best example, but you get the idea, introduce the scientific method earlier.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

@RogueTraderEnthusiast, Pharaonic Egypt already had an ubermensch philosophy. The Egyptians believed that the proper order of the world was with Egypt on top of everything. Royal tomb paintings explicitly bear this out. The only wall art that acceptable for Pharaoh's tomb was the king of Egypt kicking ass.

Interesting, I have been led to believe that living in Egypt was what made you Egyptian, sort of an open-nationalism. Not "This specific type of person is the best and no others deserve to live".

I perhaps shouldn't have used ubermensch as a descriptor, as I have read my Niezche.