John Noble Wilford writes in the N.Y. Times about a strange contraption found in a shipwreck off the coast of Greece. It was discovered 100 years ago, and was known as “the world’s first computer,” but recent high-tech analyses have shown that the contraption was even more sophisticated than researchers first realized. The instrument, with gears and dials made of bronze, was apparently designed to calculate and plot out astronomical information, “particularly phases of the Moon and planetary motions.” It is thought to have been designed by the Greek astronomer Hipparchos. “Technology historians,” Wilford writes, “say the instrument is technically more complex than any known for at least a millennium afterward.”
Which leads to an obvious question: so why didn’t the technology move forward for an entire millennium? (If anyone out there has a good answer, please let us know.)
I found myself thinking a very similar question the other day, when I was in Chicago and visited the Field Museum. I went for the King Tut exhibit, which was okay, but found myself more interested in the exhibit on Gregor Mendel. You remember Mendel, from biology class — the friar/scientist whose study of pea plants in the 1850′s helped bring about our modern understanding of genetics.
Here’s what surprised me the most. In a timeline chronicling the human understanding of genetics, the first note was about the Greek philosopher Hippocrates, who proposed “that tiny particles from every part of the body of each parent became blended, producing an individual with the characteristics of both.” That sounds pretty modern, doesn’t it? But then, the timeline noted, “Aristotle dismisses Hippocrates’ theory, noting that children do not always resemble parents, and that people who have lost limbs through accidents produce ‘whole’ children.”
As with Hipparchos’s ancient “computer,” Hippocrates’s genetic theory was apparently just too far ahead of its time. Even by the time Mendel got to work on his peas, the world wasn’t quite ready. His research sat dormant for years, and wasn’t embraced until well after his death.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
I am some what surprised at your observation that good technology some how does not get adopted by others. There are hundreds of good ideas as well as works of brilliance (e.g. art) that do not get recognized/adopted every year. I feel it’s a part of human nature that we continually emphasis what is important to us right-now rather than think of the future.
A fantastic example, and unfortunately I am too lazy to look up the numbers is comparing the dollars spent on pet food in the US each year versus the dollars spent on AIDS research. Ironically, I myself have recently been thinking about getting a dog and have not thought twice about the additional expenses. In comparison, even though my roommate is actively working in AIDs research, I have yet to fund any AIDs research directly, other than the occasional 6-pack of beer or pizza that my roommate consumes without replacing!
If I am not mistaken, isn’t this the very problem expressed in your book regarding drug dealers? The reason why they persist is that some poor sucker thinks that cash is king, not realizing the chances of success are miniscule. Humans by nature over emphasize their immediate need despite what the future might hold.
I just hope that as Economic-thinking becomes more wide spread this trend can be reversed.
I am some what surprised at your observation that good technology some how does not get adopted by others. There are hundreds of good ideas as well as works of brilliance (e.g. art) that do not get recognized/adopted every year. I feel it’s a part of human nature that we continually emphasis what is important to us right-now rather than think of the future.
A fantastic example, and unfortunately I am too lazy to look up the numbers is comparing the dollars spent on pet food in the US each year versus the dollars spent on AIDS research. Ironically, I myself have recently been thinking about getting a dog and have not thought twice about the additional expenses. In comparison, even though my roommate is actively working in AIDs research, I have yet to fund any AIDs research directly, other than the occasional 6-pack of beer or pizza that my roommate consumes without replacing!
If I am not mistaken, isn’t this the very problem expressed in your book regarding drug dealers? The reason why they persist is that some poor sucker thinks that cash is king, not realizing the chances of success are miniscule. Humans by nature over emphasize their immediate need despite what the future might hold.
I just hope that as Economic-thinking becomes more wide spread this trend can be reversed.
Since this is an economics blog, the answer to:
“why didn’t the technology move forward for an entire millennium?”
…is: there wasn’t any money in it.
Since this is an economics blog, the answer to:
“why didn’t the technology move forward for an entire millennium?”
…is: there wasn’t any money in it.
Given that they found the computer in a shipwreck, the ancient Greeks were even more advanced than has been observed: Not only did they have the first computer, they had the first computer crash.
Given that they found the computer in a shipwreck, the ancient Greeks were even more advanced than has been observed: Not only did they have the first computer, they had the first computer crash.
Blending inheritance, the idea that parental traits are more or less averaged, was actually a popular theory among 19th century biologists. Darwin, for instance, used it as his working hypotheses. It causes some problems, which is why when Mendel’s work was rediscovered it was so quickly integrated into biology. I don’t think Mendel’s work was ignored so much because people weren’t ready as because no one read it. He published it in an obscure place. Darwin, an example again, had a copy but we can be sure he never read it because he never cut the pages in order to open the volume.
Blending inheritance, the idea that parental traits are more or less averaged, was actually a popular theory among 19th century biologists. Darwin, for instance, used it as his working hypotheses. It causes some problems, which is why when Mendel’s work was rediscovered it was so quickly integrated into biology. I don’t think Mendel’s work was ignored so much because people weren’t ready as because no one read it. He published it in an obscure place. Darwin, an example again, had a copy but we can be sure he never read it because he never cut the pages in order to open the volume.