Later half reads much like the general problem of dependency solving. A depends on presence of B + C, C depends on D and (E or F), where you need E or F but not both at the same time, etc.
Which seems fitting because technology builds on other tech that needs to be available before proceeding. Can't calculate 10^9 digits of Pi without computers. Can't produce steel without a high-intensity heat source like fire or electric furnace. Can't do large-scale mechanized farming without tractors/harvesters, etc.
So technological progress can be seen as discovering+building a dependency graph of various technologies, which in turn enable the discovery & addition of new entries. With discovery ranging from "accidental" to "informed, highly focussed search" (aka R&D).
I share author's interest in the historical context - it's a fascinating subject. For example ~1850s industrialization seems to have been a very lucky shot. Which was impossible elsewhere, or would have quickly gone sideways if some factor (eg. existing coal supply chain) had been absent.
Makes you think about just how (un)likely a high-tech civilization is. Once you get to a baselevel (telecom, mass production, cheap energy) progress seems inevitable. But getting to that baselevel? Looots of luck involved.
Later half reads much like the general problem of dependency solving. A depends on presence of B + C, C depends on D and (E or F), where you need E or F but not both at the same time, etc.
See for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT_solver
Which seems fitting because technology builds on other tech that needs to be available before proceeding. Can't calculate 10^9 digits of Pi without computers. Can't produce steel without a high-intensity heat source like fire or electric furnace. Can't do large-scale mechanized farming without tractors/harvesters, etc.
So technological progress can be seen as discovering+building a dependency graph of various technologies, which in turn enable the discovery & addition of new entries. With discovery ranging from "accidental" to "informed, highly focussed search" (aka R&D).
I share author's interest in the historical context - it's a fascinating subject. For example ~1850s industrialization seems to have been a very lucky shot. Which was impossible elsewhere, or would have quickly gone sideways if some factor (eg. existing coal supply chain) had been absent.
Makes you think about just how (un)likely a high-tech civilization is. Once you get to a baselevel (telecom, mass production, cheap energy) progress seems inevitable. But getting to that baselevel? Looots of luck involved.
Technology is a subset of science. So the same pattern scales to the scientific method.