Languish.org

QuoteThere has been no 40 year stretch in all of human history which had more change than 1984 - 2024.

This was posted on Pdox boards by the inestimable Yakman this week.  I disagreed.  I pointed out that the previous 40 years, 1944-1984 saw more changes.  Stuff like the Atomic bomb, decolonization, the end of WW2, the moon landing, etc.  What do you folks think?

I'd say no - but also that you can probably make a credible case for basically any 40 year period since the industrial revolution.

My vote is for the first 40 years of the Bronze Age.

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 22, 2024, 01:07:24 PMI'd say no - but also that you can probably make a credible case for basically any 40 year period since the industrial revolution.

Yes.

I think the past 40 years has seen changes that are huge but very subtle. Mental rather than material.
The web has been massive and revolutionary, especially since it went onto smartphones. I think it might be fair to say the human mind has changed more in the past 2 decades than at any other point.

I suppose the environment is another one worth noting. The changes and devestation there have been huge...

And then it's worth considering we could be stuck in a western mindset. Consider how much things have changed in parts of the developing world. China in particular but elswhere too. This has been huge. And broadly for the better of the people there.
Even away from there the way flying has become such a borderline every day thing in Europe is also massive.

No...thinking it through I do think the original statement is right.

1914-1954 saw far, far more significant change.

My grandma went from not having electricity in their home when she was a little kid to talking to her grandson who was half a continent away on a tablet (even if with help) near the end of her life.

I agree with Raz.

One thing that I've been thinking about for several weeks is how little scientific advance we've had in the last 20 years.  Honestly, the world doesn't seem that much different than it was back in 2000.  What great scientific and technological advances have their been in the last two decades.  Sure, I can watch pornography on the bus, but that's not exactly life changing.  Despite all our advances in IT and the internet we haven't really seen a big increase in productivity.  The other big area where we could advance is genetic engineering, and we've been actively stymied in that department.

Quote from: Tamas on August 22, 2024, 02:51:45 PMMy grandma went from not having electricity in their home when she was a little kid to talking to her grandson who was half a continent away on a tablet (even if with help) near the end of her life.

I agree with Raz.

Man your family has kids young.
And Hungary in the 80s sure sounds rough.

Quote from: Josquius on August 22, 2024, 02:58:42 PM

Quote from: Tamas on August 22, 2024, 02:51:45 PMMy grandma went from not having electricity in their home when she was a little kid to talking to her grandson who was half a continent away on a tablet (even if with help) near the end of her life.

I agree with Raz.

Man your family has kids young.
And Hungary in the 80s sure sounds rough.

My grandma died 6 weeks short of her 100th birthday. And the no electricity bit was mid-20s :P

I always thought the generation that went from living a pretty traditional way to having trains and steam ships and telegraphs and eventually electricity and telephones went through the biggest change. That must have been mind blowing.

Sure things changed a bunch since 1984 but...we were pretty used to things changing by then. Nothing that has happened technology wise would have shocked many people in 1984, they knew big changes were coming because they had been ongoing for 100 years. Heck I think my 1984 self would be more disappointed by what didn't happen by 2024.

I think that you guys are looking at the question from a Western-centric viewpoint.  China in 1914 was divided and torn by civil war and foreign spheres of influence with Chinese peasants dying in floods, famines, and epidemics in the millions, some years.  In 1954, they were united under the CCP, had peace, health care, the start of education, women went from being property to having equal rights, etc.  That's a quarter of the world's population seeing massive, almost unbeievable (by 1914 standards) change.

Another 15% of the world's population was in India.  From dirtwater-poor resource extraction for their British overlords to an independent state and the world's biggest democracy.  From caste-oppressed (by law) to casteless (at least by law).  Women, again, went from being virtual property to legally-equal citizens. 

Africa shows the same trend, with 10% of the world's population, though decolonization was only getting started by 1954.

It's in looking beyond the west that more of a case for recent years emerges.
I think life in China has changed more in the past 40 years than in the early 20th century.

It was more turbulent back then. More "change" in the sense of "which army will torch my village this year", but then China has had lots of such turbulent periods in history. I don't think it means that sort of change.

For a regular villager life between the Qing and the early PRC would be little different.
In more recent times however you get Valmys generation that went from largely unchanged for centuries to cars and mobile phones.
Many villages have outright been turned into modern cities in the blink of an eye.

As to Africa... I don't think decolonisation changed much for the average guy. Again it's in more recent times where urbanisation has really took off and mobile phones have led to rural Africa leapfrogging a few stages of development and totally changed people's view of the world.

Between Qing and PRC 25% of China was occupied by Japanese (the most populous bit), tens of millions of civilians died, Chiang burst the dykes causing the Yellow River to change course (not unheard of in Chinese history) - that's ignoring the warlord era and then replacement by the PRC.

Obviously there's a debate of whether you mean the speed of change by measuring the cutting edge or scale of it by measuring its reach.

I absolutely think it's true that the pace and breadth of change in China has been exceptional - you know it is wild to think of Western politicians like Keir Starmer becoming PM at 60. The change he's seen in the UK from the mid-60s is not really that significant. An equivalent Chinese politician lived through the Cultural Revolution, Deng and Reform and Opening, Tiananmen, huge economic growth since then including "peak openness" at the Olympics to Xi and a new more closed era. But I think a similar argument could be made from the end of Qing to PRC, or the years of the collapsing Qing - Opium, Taiping, foreigners, the entire social and intellectual order of Qing society falling apart etc.

So what you're saying is that it's always sucked to be a citizen of China.

Quote from: Tamas on August 22, 2024, 03:19:58 PM

Quote from: Josquius on August 22, 2024, 02:58:42 PM

Quote from: Tamas on August 22, 2024, 02:51:45 PMMy grandma went from not having electricity in their home when she was a little kid to talking to her grandson who was half a continent away on a tablet (even if with help) near the end of her life.

I agree with Raz.

Man your family has kids young.
And Hungary in the 80s sure sounds rough.

My grandma died 6 weeks short of her 100th birthday. And the no electricity bit was mid-20s :P

For someone in Hungary I would have thought the biggest changes occurred since 1984.  Although Grumbler makes a compelling case for 1914-1954.

Decolonization seems like a pretty big deal.  I think Grumbler's right that 1914-1954 is the biggest changes on the planet.  The biggest political change in the last 40 years is collapse of communism in Europe, which was a big deal, but it was 30 years ago.  Since then there hasn't been a great deal of change.  The biggest story since then is the real, but uneven, growth of the third world.  The cause of that growth is decolonization followed by the end of the cold war.

Yeah two world wars, the collapse of the British Empire, the rise and fall of the Japanese Empire, the creation of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Block, decolonization and independence for many nations across the world, the end of the Austria-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires, the Holocaust and the creation of Israel, the creation of car culture, the creation of international pop-culture, the rise of America as cultural and military superpower...

I think that 1984 to 2024 has seen more technological change than 1914-54, but that the political and cultural changes of 1914-54 were more significant.

As I say I think you could make a good argument about basically any forty years in the 19th and 20th centuries. But I think it's interesting that both of you mention decolonisation - because I'm not sure why that is necessarily more significant than colonisation/imperialism.

So, for example, the 40 years prior to WW1 had the scramble for Africa, Cape to Cairo and discovery of resources, establishment, peak and nationalisation of the Congo Free State, concentration camps in South Africa and genocide in Namibia. It also had the establishment of French imperialism in Indochina, the end of the last independent states in Indonesia, the Boxer Rebellion and its consequences (open doors in China for Western powers, collapse of the Qing and declaration of a Chinese republic) - plus the rise of new entrants in global imperialism with the Sino-Japanese war, Japan taking over Korea and the Spanish-American war (and the end of the American colonisation of the West). And running through all of that new types of resistance to empire - especially China and India but led, in a way, or particularly inspired by the Russian-Japanese war.

And with that the example of Japan and "modernisation" - the Young Turks, reform in Qajar Iran and revolution in 1905. 

Obviously there is all the technological/scientific stuff too like the spread of rubber in everyday life - it's the start of the bicycling boom across the world, the first ever electric power plant, electrification of cities, invention of cars, refrigeration ships and railway carriages, invention of antibiotics, breakthrough of germ theory (which I think is arguably the most important medical discovery ever in the importance of clean water, disinfecting, sterilisation, washing your hands etc) etc. (Total aside but on the germ theory point read a horrifying book on the assassination of James Garfield - it's argued over but very possible he might have survived if his doctors didn't probe the bullet wounds so much with their unwashed hands and instruments. It's so grim.)

I wouldn't necessarily make a case for those 40 years either - just think it's an interesting example of what I mean. But also a bit struck by mentioning decolonisation (and I agree) when it seems that the creation of colonies and empires which, for most of the world, was pretty recent seems similarly important.

What did decolonisation actually change for most people?

All it really did was swap out a few of the local government folks at the top, a few flags here and there, maybe every few years a guy coming round telling you to vote...

For the middle class and elites sure. Bigger changes. But I really don't think it meant that much at all for most people's daily lives.

Do remember quite how recent Africa's large-scale urbanisation is. Look at population growth over the past century and it has shot up in most of the continent.

I'd agree colonisation was generally a much bigger change. It often did mean fundamental changes in the structure of how a place worked. Installing modern government based on lines on maps, taxes, and all that, where before quite different structures existed in many places.

In German history, the time period from 1914 to 1954 saw WW1, the end of centuries of German monarchies, the Weimar Republic with its upheaval and cultural-intellectual peak, the Nazi period with WW2 and genocide, occupation, loss of the Eastern territories and expulsion of millions, foundation of a democratic and a communist German state in the Cold War...

The period from 1984 onwards saw the annexation of East Germany and deep integration into the EU.

Seems clear to me which period saw more change here.

I was under the impression that colonization took longer than 40 years.

Quote from: Josquius on August 23, 2024, 05:17:58 AMWhat did decolonisation actually change for most people?

Well, for many it meant they were in a civil war.  Sometimes it meant they were communist now.  Many, many more people now had civil rights, which is nice.

Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2024, 12:31:40 PM

QuoteThere has been no 40 year stretch in all of human history which had more change than 1984 - 2024.

This was posted on Pdox boards by the inestimable Yakman this week.  I disagreed.  I pointed out that the previous 40 years, 1944-1984 saw more changes.  Stuff like the Atomic bomb, decolonization, the end of WW2, the moon landing, etc.  What do you folks think?

1914-1954 for me

Quote from: Josquius on August 23, 2024, 05:17:58 AMWhat did decolonisation actually change for most people?

It changed the fundamental basis of the economies of both the colonizers and colonized.  The Green Revolution came later in India, but at least farmers were no longer forced to grow cash crops instead of their own food.  The former colonies could build factories instead of being forced to import manufactured goods.

The economic changes hadn't produced a great deal of change by 1954, but the newfound economic freedoms were visible to everyone by 1954.

Note that the Great Leap Forward was still in the future in 1954.  The window might be adjusted a bit to include it if people are looking for maximal change.

Quote from: grumbler on August 23, 2024, 08:06:44 AM

Quote from: Josquius on August 23, 2024, 05:17:58 AMWhat did decolonisation actually change for most people?

It changed the fundamental basis of the economies of both the colonizers and colonized.  The Green Revolution came later in India, but at least farmers were no longer forced to grow cash crops instead of their own food.  The former colonies could build factories instead of being forced to import manufactured goods.

That's the theory. And in India certainly the government did try a lot. The license raj and weird third way pseudo-socialism was a big deal.
I guess I'm thinking more around Africa here where more often than not what you got was simply a replacing of white civil servants and politicians with black ones. Foreign business retained command over vast swathes of the economy, foreign managers heavily remained in place....and most people in their daily life had no contact with any of these people anyway.
But then I suppose again here its a question of how we're measuring change since there were a lot less people in Africa than today.

Efforts to start up local industry...they happened on occasion in Africa but largely the old trading arrangements remained in place- in India this had been a rising trend even pre-independence (see Tata) and yes, the government certainly pushed through change there. On this one I do think its worth seeing it alongside Indian independence as a process stretching right back to the formation of the Raj rather than the sudden event the Indian nationalists like to pretend it was.

QuoteNote that the Great Leap Forward was still in the future in 1954.  The window might be adjusted a bit to include it if people are looking for maximal change.

If looking just at China yeah, I'd think going more to a start date in the 20s or maybe even 30s would give you the biggest impact on most people.
Again though I suppose there's the question of whether that's what we're looking at or the 'country' as an institution or what.

Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2024, 06:37:43 AMI was under the impression that colonization took longer than 40 years.

It depends where you are - you know the Caribbean or parts of the Americas have 500 years. India for a couple of hundred years. But between the Opium War and Mao on Tiananmen gate declaring the PRC is about 100 a years - it really is a century of humiliation. For, say, Nigeria or Indochina colonial rule is about 80 years. Between 1848 and the West "closing" is a lot less than 40 years.

That isn't to say that those "uncolonised" areas of the world were not feeling the impact of colonialism elsewhere - for example, the interior of Africa was hugely impacted by the Atlantic slave trade. It transformed societies many miles from the location of the European ports on the edge of Africa.

But I think you can meaningfully talk about entire phases of colonial history within the 19th century.

In a way I think it's a bit like what I'd argue happens after the industrial revolution. It's like a fireworks display - there are different lengths of fuse and different fireworks. It isn't all happening at once everywhere, but pretty consistently there is always vast discombobulating change somewhere.

QuoteWhat did decolonisation actually change for most people?

All it really did was swap out a few of the local government folks at the top, a few flags here and there, maybe every few years a guy coming round telling you to vote...

Welcome to Languish, Kemi Badenoch :P

I don't think achieving national sovereignty is an insignificant thing whether - in that period - it's China, India, Pakistan or Indonesia. It may not necessarily have a significant material impact immediately.

QuoteIt changed the fundamental basis of the economies of both the colonizers and colonized.  The Green Revolution came later in India, but at least farmers were no longer forced to grow cash crops instead of their own food.  The former colonies could build factories instead of being forced to import manufactured goods.

Yeah although I think it depends slightly when you're looking at it (for example once minimal home rule is introduced to India in 1919, British India - over loud campaigns from British industry - more than doubles their tariffs on the UK) - I'm not sure there ever really was an imperial economy in the British empire and the free trading bit was radically important.

But I think you're right in general and particularly with the Green Revolution. I also think it's part of the twentieth century developmental state - so you see similar processes in Latin America despite not being part of any formal empire (and attempts in, say, the Middle East).

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 23, 2024, 10:51:57 AM]
Welcome to Languish, Kemi Badenoch :P

I don't think achieving national sovereignty is an insignificant thing whether - in that period - it's China, India, Pakistan or Indonesia. It may not necessarily have a significant material impact immediately.

Badenoch is against neocolonialism and corrupt dictatorships? :unsure:
Never expected that from her.

As said for the middle class it was a big deal. Material and in terms of fluffy feels.
But despite some initial promises and hope it didn't change much for regular people - a few positive cases that bucked the trend and more than a few that turned quite negative.

On the other hand, what is so important about the last 40 years?  The past quarter century in particular doesn't seem very interesting.

Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2024, 12:12:17 PMOn the other hand, what is so important about the last 40 years?  The past quarter century in particular doesn't seem very interesting.

..

The Internet, especially in its mobile form, has massively altered people's mindsets.
In the west this is so. In Africa and other less developed parts of the world even more so - people in places that previously didn't have tv or newspapers or anything suddenly have the full Internet in their pocket.

So do you remember the world without internet?  Even in Africa they had newspapers.

Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2024, 02:28:43 PMSo do you remember the world without internet?  Even in Africa they had newspapers.

I remember it yes. Not sure what you mean.
Rural people in most of Africa usually didn't get newspapers no.

People who have internet now have electricity.  If there was no internet they'd have TV and newspapers instead.

Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2024, 12:31:40 PM

QuoteThere has been no 40 year stretch in all of human history which had more change than 1984 - 2024.

This was posted on Pdox boards by the inestimable Yakman this week.  I disagreed.  I pointed out that the previous 40 years, 1944-1984 saw more changes.  Stuff like the Atomic bomb, decolonization, the end of WW2, the moon landing, etc.  What do you folks think?

I think it is hard to say, because, say 1860-1900 saw some significant change. 1910-1950 too.
But there is a grain of truth to it, because we have seen huge changes in my lifetime. Mostly in communication, in wealth, in transport, in actually understanding the environment isn't just there for abuse.

A period of 40 years is a blink of an eye in human history. And most of it isn't recorded, although I am sure someone will claim to have been around when humans learned how to use fire.

Quote from: Josquius on August 23, 2024, 10:57:28 AMAs said for the middle class it was a big deal. Material and in terms of fluffy feels.

But despite some initial promises and hope it didn't change much for regular people - a few positive cases that bucked the trend and more than a few that turned quite negative.

National sovereignty and independence in a free state is not just fluffy feels. It's pretty key to the last two hundred years and is what we're seeing being fought over right now in Ukraine (and the fundamental aspiration of Palestinians).

And often working class or poor people who may not necessarily directly benefit from it have absolutely been key fighting for it, even if they're not shaping the discourse.

Although, to Grumbler's point - there has never been a famine in free post-colonial India. They were a regular occurrence in British India. I'd add there has never been a famine in a free Ireland either - but the population of the island of Ireland is still lower than it was following the one under the British. So I think it's more than possible there are significant material differences from different choices being made even by a problematic local elite because their local issues are not going to be subordinated to imperial interests.

QuoteNational sovereignty and independence in a free state is not just fluffy feels. It's pretty key to the last two hundred years and is what we're seeing being fought over right now in Ukraine (and the fundamental aspiration of Palestinians).

And often working class or poor people who may not necessarily directly benefit from it have absolutely been key fighting for it, even if they're not shaping the discourse.

Yes. The working class are the victims of the elites games.
But then that's another strike against decolonisation as a huge change as in much of the world it tended not to be such a massed violent struggle, as popular as that narrative can be.
The regular people were usually just there and swept along with the changes, very often seeming very little actual change coming out to the provinces with them.

QuoteAlthough, to Grumbler's point - there has never been a famine in free post-colonial India. They were a regular occurrence in British India. I'd add there has never been a famine in a free Ireland either - but the population of the island of Ireland is still lower than it was following the one under the British. So I think it's more than possible there are significant material differences from different choices being made even by a problematic local elite because their local issues are not going to be subordinated to imperial interests.

Less famine in modern times has nothing to do with imperialism.
But certainly the green revolution and explosion in the global population has been a huge change of the past century.

We are speaking in very broad scopes here. Local rulers can be better, they can be worse, they can be meh. But im not sure where you're going with this. No matter whether it's a good ruler or a bad ruler very often it meant little to most people.

Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2024, 03:02:38 PMPeople who have internet now have electricity.  If there was no internet they'd have TV and newspapers instead.

If WW1 hadn't happened there'd have been X. You can say this for anything.

And you over estimate the state of the electric grid in much of rural Africa- though there too its a very modern development that electricity is spreading fast. The drop in the price of domestic solutions that don't rely on a grid has helped a lot.  Similar to how the mobile Internet has really revolutionised things for them, skipping over the intermediate steps of an electric grid, landlines, and wired Internet.
The continent is changing a lot in recent decades and very under the radar to most in the west.

Im pretty sure mass communication happened in Africa prior to widespread internet. For example, radio was used to whip up sentiment for the Rwandan gemocide, as I understand it.

Quote from: Jacob on August 23, 2024, 10:29:03 PMIm pretty sure mass communication happened in Africa prior to widespread internet. For example, radio was used to whip up sentiment for the Rwandan gemocide, as I understand it.

That is my understanding too.

I would say it is hard to underestimate the importance of the railroad too, both for military and civilian measures in most of the Northern hemisphere.

Quote from: Jacob on August 23, 2024, 10:29:03 PMIm pretty sure mass communication happened in Africa prior to widespread internet. For example, radio was used to whip up sentiment for the Rwandan gemocide, as I understand it.

Going way outside by area but as I understand yeah, radio was fairly big.
Again Africa is a big and varied place. Some of the better linked up parts like Kenya basically had a radio in every family from the 50s/60s whilst more normal you had a handful in a village. Again modern days with cheap batteries and wind up radios have helped a lot.
But this was generally pretty
limited up till modern times. Strictly local.

Purely anecdotally but on Rwanda when talking about how problems could have been solved in the 60s to help think outside the box nobody thought about radio. They all went to town billboards and the like. Which was curious. Probably a sign of times changing today.

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 23, 2024, 03:47:20 PMNational sovereignty and independence in a free state is not just fluffy feels. It's pretty key to the last two hundred years and is what we're seeing being fought over right now in Ukraine (and the fundamental aspiration of Palestinians).

I've seen nothing suggesting 'national sovereignty and independence in a free state' is a fundamental aspiration of Palestinians.

The destruction of Israel clearly takes precedence.

Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2024, 12:31:40 PM

QuoteThere has been no 40 year stretch in all of human history which had more change than 1984 - 2024.

This was posted on Pdox boards by the inestimable Yakman this week.  I disagreed.  I pointed out that the previous 40 years, 1944-1984 saw more changes.  Stuff like the Atomic bomb, decolonization, the end of WW2, the moon landing, etc.  What do you folks think?

Depends on how you define change.

There's a lot of progress with computer technologies, but it's all an evolution from what we had in 1984, it's not really "new" stuff.  Computers are better and faster and can do some things alone (AI).  Politically, we are almost as radicalized as in 1944-1984.

Colonization is still happening in some parts of the world, but some people cheer on it while during 1944-1984 those same people would have frowned upon this practice.

Quote from: Iormlund on August 24, 2024, 06:53:10 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 23, 2024, 03:47:20 PMNational sovereignty and independence in a free state is not just fluffy feels. It's pretty key to the last two hundred years and is what we're seeing being fought over right now in Ukraine (and the fundamental aspiration of Palestinians).

I've seen nothing suggesting 'national sovereignty and independence in a free state' is a fundamental aspiration of Palestinians.

The destruction of Israel clearly takes precedence.

From a certain point of view, many may feel they will not have 'national sovereignty and independence in a free state' as long as Israel exists.  I can hardly fault that line of thinking in the last 25 years.

Quote from: Josquius on August 22, 2024, 02:58:42 PM

Quote from: Tamas on August 22, 2024, 02:51:45 PMMy grandma went from not having electricity in their home when she was a little kid to talking to her grandson who was half a continent away on a tablet (even if with help) near the end of her life.

I agree with Raz.

Man your family has kids young.
And Hungary in the 80s sure sounds rough.

I'm not certain my grandparents had electricity in their homes either when they were young.

The house where they lived when I knew them, right beside them did not have running water until after I was born, I think.
It sure did not have a bath because I remember my father and my uncles installing it.

In the stable, there was still a manual pump when I was very young.  A part of the house did not have electricity at first, my dad installed it later for my grandparents.  Anyway, the house was built in... 1901 I think, my paternal grandparents were both born 1921-1925 in the countryside and neither had running water or electricity in their childhood houses.  Neither one had cars.   I don't think my mother had electricity or running water in her first childhood home either.


Electrification of the countryside in Quebec was a thing of the 50s, by a very right wing Premier, Maurice Duplessis ( :wub:, except for the :pope: ).  Before the last phase of electricity nationalization in the early 60s.

I'd like to point out that from 1974-2014, one of the biggest changes in attitude is that people realised smoking was bad. In every way. So that pack of cigarettes are no longer part of the soldier's pack.

I think the past forty years has changed several things. We actually see our environment as something to care for. There are wins and losses. In other periods there was fasting and vows of silence. You do not see those these days. But people fast on some diet.

I think since World War II, the world in general became more interdependent as we realised collectively that we should rather share resources through trade than try and send a few ill-equipped panzer groups to capture some oil fields. Obviously, that led to a few coup d'etats here and there.

My dad was a typesetter. In the same paper I work for now. Typesetting was sort of top of the pile among the non-journalist staff. He had his master certificate, and took pride in his work. In 1983, the paper introduced computers to do some of the typesetting, the edited part. And he was picked out to lead this. He was one of the first to learn the basics of what became HTML from Norsk Data. It basically killed his job.

My dad was not a great dad in any way. I have very little admiration for him. But he knew his trade and profession, and he was good at it. The sole reason I mention this is that for the past four decades several trades and professions have just disappeared.

If you were a master craftsman in 1420, making, say, barrels or ships or whatever, you could pass that trade on.

The biggest change is that every industry and business should be "disrupted" now by something new and better. And we're all promised better, bigger, superb jobs. Which all fail to materialise. A bot can do that telemarketing job you were promised after 40 years of working manual labour or whatever.

The last 40 years have seen me go from a fairly optimistic lad to a bitter old man - I would say that is a lot of change.

Quote from: Iormlund on August 24, 2024, 06:53:10 PMI've seen nothing suggesting 'national sovereignty and independence in a free state' is a fundamental aspiration of Palestinians.

I've seen nothing suggesting that you have ever bothered to educate yourself on the topic.

Quote from: PDH on August 24, 2024, 10:11:05 PMThe last 40 years have seen me go from a fairly optimistic lad to a bitter old man - I would say that is a lot of change.

I was going to say same as it ever was, but the change is that now young lads are also not optimistic.

What I'm curious about is what are the big scientific and technological advances of the last 40 years.  In the last 25 years in particular, it seems we haven't had much.  I find it very disappointing. I can't help but feel that could be making strides in genetic engineering, but have been stymied by laws and public hysteria.

Quote from: Razgovory on August 25, 2024, 11:57:17 AMWhat I'm curious about is what are the big scientific and technological advances of the last 40 years.  In the last 25 years in particular, it seems we haven't had much.  I find it very disappointing. I can't help but feel that could be making strides in genetic engineering, but have been stymied by laws and public hysteria.

Scientific advances are occurring so rapidly now that it really isn't registering the way scientific discoveries used to be noteworthy.

It was just 20 years ago that the human genetic code was sequenced and now medical treatments based on an individual's specific genetics are almost common place.

So I'm not sure what you mean by genetic engineering.

Yeah. Technology is advancing really fast.
This past decade Moores Law has slowed down but before hand things were insanely fast.
Then you've got the Internet which has gone from nothing to transformative.
And in recent years green tech has come on tonnes. Not to mention genetics and medicine.

It is a pretty standard trope, the whole "we were promised jet packs, robot butlers, and mars colonies!" thing. Technological advancement has been a lot more subtle than this. But it has been huge.

Also just thinking about Norgy's comment on the shift on smoking - which I totally agree with - I feel like the weight loss drugs are going to be pretty transformative.

I'd add translation software is genuinely extraordinary now. I think they may end up being something that accelerates (possible) deglobalisation. Also GPS and 3D printing spring to mind.

I think the big one may not necessarily be new technology and is tied with China (which, I think, is the big change of the last 25 years) - but the reduction in costs and mass manufacturing of EVs and renewable energy being driven by China. They're testing 1,000kmh trains and building $30k EVs - I think that's probably as significant at this stage as America's industrial breakthroughs at the start of the 20th century (even if they might not find a market in North America or Europe - which is in its own way a significant shift from 2000).

But again it gets to the orientation of the question - do we mean the advance of the cutting edge/vanguard or the democratisation/broad spread of those changes.

Quote from: Razgovory on August 25, 2024, 11:57:17 AMWhat I'm curious about is what are the big scientific and technological advances of the last 40 years.  In the last 25 years in particular, it seems we haven't had much.  I find it very disappointing. I can't help but feel that could be making strides in genetic engineering, but have been stymied by laws and public hysteria.

Ray tracing, path tracing, frame generation and DLSS.  According to Reddit.

AI, according to tech companies.

Crypto money, according to modern financial investors scammers.



;)

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 25, 2024, 01:38:31 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on August 25, 2024, 11:57:17 AMWhat I'm curious about is what are the big scientific and technological advances of the last 40 years.  In the last 25 years in particular, it seems we haven't had much.  I find it very disappointing. I can't help but feel that could be making strides in genetic engineering, but have been stymied by laws and public hysteria.

Scientific advances are occurring so rapidly now that it really isn't registering the way scientific discoveries used to be noteworthy.

It was just 20 years ago that the human genetic code was sequenced and now medical treatments based on an individual's specific genetics are almost common place.

So I'm not sure what you mean by genetic engineering.

Are scientific advances occurring so rapidly that we aren't registering them?  What proof of this do you have?
The sentence

" It was just 20 years ago that the human genetic code was sequenced and now medical treatments based on an individual's specific genetics are almost common place."  

Could be rewritten slightly as 

" It was 20 years ago that the human genetic code was sequenced and medical treatments based on an individual's specific genetics are still not common place."

And has an identical meaning.

When I talk about genetic engineering, I'm talking about modifying people, animals, and plants.  This has faced immense resistance.  There are some modified plants, but companies often refuse to use them, and whole countries ban them.

Compare this to the forty years prior to 1984.  You have atomic bombs, moon landings, space probes, satellites, nuclear power plants, digital computers, arguably the internet was invented in this time period, some real advances in material sciences such as plastics, development of the standard model, plate tectonics, the first really effective psychiatric medications, lasers, the Big Bang, organ transplants, cell phones, DNA discovered, etc  

How many of the inventions you consider important now were immediately recognized as important at the time?  I bet quite a few modern inventions will be considered foundational, but their true value is not recognized right now, because they haven't been fully exploited yet.  It probably took a few decades before Internet became an obviously transformational invention.

When talking about change in this context I think that political changes (of the type regime change) are relevant to the extent they have a clear impact on more fundamental aspects of life, but are not necessarily very relevant in themselves.

I've read that there has been a pretty great increase in material standard of living in the poorer parts of the world the past 40 years.

In parts of the world the past 40 years have meant much greater acceptance of LGBTQ+ stuff. That's quite a significant change for many lives, but of course not on a global scale.

The most profound technological development in the last forty (in the West sixty) years is birth control. Most societies outside Africa are now below replacement level, some in East Asia and Central/Eastern Europe already start contracting. It is a global phenomenon and will shape economy, politics, and even climate change for the next century. After two hundred centuries of rapid population growth, Earth will see fewer, older humans eventually.

Quote from: Razgovory on August 25, 2024, 08:01:26 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 25, 2024, 01:38:31 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on August 25, 2024, 11:57:17 AMWhat I'm curious about is what are the big scientific and technological advances of the last 40 years.  In the last 25 years in particular, it seems we haven't had much.  I find it very disappointing. I can't help but feel that could be making strides in genetic engineering, but have been stymied by laws and public hysteria.

Scientific advances are occurring so rapidly now that it really isn't registering the way scientific discoveries used to be noteworthy.

It was just 20 years ago that the human genetic code was sequenced and now medical treatments based on an individual's specific genetics are almost common place.

So I'm not sure what you mean by genetic engineering.

Are scientific advances occurring so rapidly that we aren't registering them?  What proof of this do you have?
The sentence

" It was just 20 years ago that the human genetic code was sequenced and now medical treatments based on an individual's specific genetics are almost common place." 

Could be rewritten slightly as

" It was 20 years ago that the human genetic code was sequenced and medical treatments based on an individual's specific genetics are still not common place."

And has an identical meaning.

When I talk about genetic engineering, I'm talking about modifying people, animals, and plants.  This has faced immense resistance.  There are some modified plants, but companies often refuse to use them, and whole countries ban them.

Compare this to the forty years prior to 1984.  You have atomic bombs, moon landings, space probes, satellites, nuclear power plants, digital computers, arguably the internet was invented in this time period, some real advances in material sciences such as plastics, development of the standard model, plate tectonics, the first really effective psychiatric medications, lasers, the Big Bang, organ transplants, cell phones, DNA discovered, etc 

Genetic treatments are not common in the same way that all specialized and expensive medical treatments are not common.

That they exist at all is prove of dramatic leaps in our knowledge of genetics over the last 20 years.

But the average person like you is not knowledgeable about what is happening.  That doesn't mean research breakthroughs are not happening. 

Ooh burn. You're so...average!

No insult was intended.  It is simply a fact that unless a person has some specialized knowledge they won't know about the breakthroughs being made.  Also people with specialized knowledge will not likely know about breakthroughs outside their area of knowledge.

I think CC might be on to something here. Most technological leaps & changes of the last 40 years have been extremely specialized and thus, hidden.

In the industry I work in the last 40 years have seen humans develop machines with the ability to lay material over other material in layers that are 6 to 10 atoms thick. Nanometers & smaller. We've jumped from having analog signal TVs to billions of pixels analyzed by magnitudes of computer power contained in watches size machine. An industry used by billions of humans, everyday, seemlessly.

In the previous 40 years before that my industry did not exist.

I think there is a paradox there somewhere.  The more widespread the process of invention is, the less likely there is to be a "Great Person" genius.  Because so many people are doing inventing these days, on small scale and large scale, it's much harder to stand out as a towering genius able to innovate across many disciplines.  However, in totality, the effect of all the inventions that do happen is greater.

Yeah I think that's a good point

Just look at cars these last 40 years. A side by side comparison makes a modern car a space ship in comparison to a 1984 car and if we go back to 1944 the 1984 car is not a space ship in comparison.

There's an order of magnitude more difference, but it's still a car with the same use case so we might not see the difference very clearly.

As with all these types of questions, it really depends on the types of change we prioritize and the metrics we use to measure them.

So interesting thread.

Seems like there are two separate ways of looking at it - political, and technological.

The political is very much going to depend on where you live.  I certainly get the argument for why decolonization was such a huge deal for Africa, or China, or India (or the flip side - why colonization was).  But living in Canada decolonization had very little impact on us.

That being said - I'd like to make the case for 1790-1830 or so.  Obviously you have the French revolution, and then the Napoleonic wards which completely re-organized Europe.  But you also had huge steps to abolish slavery during that time period, with revolutionary france and the UK both abolishing slavery, the UK attempting to ban it throughout the world, and with Haiti successfully rebelling and ending slavery there.  Obviously slavery itself as an institution would last several more decades in parts of the world (US, Brazil) but there was a huge change to millions of formerly enslaved people around the world during this time period.


As for technologically...  yes on the one hand you can definitely make the argument for, say, 1920-1960 or so.  If you were born in 1920 odds are you had no electricity and the primary mode of transportation was the horse, whereas by 1960 electricity and automobiles were standard (and not to mention indoor plumbing!).

But don't discount 1984-2024!  Yes, we don't have flying cars or whatever.  But the information revolution is massive.    Growing up we got our first computer actually at Christmas 1984 - an Apple IIc.  I loved that thing - but it didn't exactly change our lives.  Mostly used it to play games, or I'd type out a few school assignments.  I remember when we first got a modem by the late 80s - we used it to dial in to local BBSes - now you could chat with people all around your local community.  Then move on to email, the internet, cell phone and social media.  We now carry in our pockets powerful computers with the ability to communicate with people anywhere on earth.  It's had huge affects on politics both good (how Ukraine was able to organize their own resistance) and bad (the Chinese surveillance state).  The technology is so cheap it's spread world-wide - even urban slum dwellers in Africa or India can access the world.

I think that that is a good summary of some viable candidates.  A significant change in your 1790-1830 bracket was the rise of the war on the Atlantic Slave Trade, which changed the lives of probably millions of Africans that would otherwise have been taken.

Quote from: grumbler on August 27, 2024, 11:10:34 AMI think that that is a good summary of some viable candidates.  A significant change in your 1790-1830 bracket was the rise of the war on the Atlantic Slave Trade, which changed the lives of probably millions of Africans that would otherwise have been taken.

Yeah the European stuff is very important in European history, but not necessarily for the wider world.  I thought the changes in slavery, combined with the changes in Europe, made it a contender.

Oh I also forgot - during that period Spain lost all of it's South and central American colonies.

I would like to pitch in an outlier. The Chinese Tang dynasty. It lasted for more than 40 years, but saw revolutionary developments. Like the use of brown coal. Michael Wood makes a case for the Tang dynasty having a "first industrial revolution" in the 8th century. Thankfully, we Europeans weren't bothered much because of Viking and Arab incursions.

I don't know how many of you who've read Graeber and Wengrow's "The Dawn of Everything". While it may also be an outlier in the Incan Torpedo Boat category in some places, they do make some interesting points.

Mass communication, like after 1900, has been a revolutionary change. I think it is rather amazing that we can sit here, in different countries and communicate. And we can even meet up.

I'd also make a case for the 1914-1954. The Great War was such an implosion on the world order and the senseless slaughter of millions in the trenches changed Europe forever. As a continent, we shot off our own feet for a very low rate of return. The radio, the car, the household appliances like a washing machine, all became more available. Class conflict showed how industrial societies had deepened the enmity within countries.

Then came WWII and it changed Europe fundamentally by 1945. It was the rise of a bipolar world. Technological innovation was enormous during the war and afterwards. And after that we have had to live under the threat of mutually assured mass destruction.

I can see a case for the opening post of this thread, but I simply am not sure. Because you guys have made so many other valid points that I nod at and accept.
Aren't we a clever bunch?

I do wonder whether there's a 40 year period af some point in history where the stars align and bad shit goes down for basically every corner of the world.
The Qing dynasty conquering China lines up pretty well with the 30 years war I believe.
Could be in the running for the constant change this means.
Anything better out there? The last days of rome lining up with one of china's divided periods?
No idea about elsewhere in the world alas.

Quote from: Josquius on August 27, 2024, 01:49:50 PMI do wonder whether there's a 40 year period af some point in history where the stars align and bad shit goes down for basically every corner of the world.

My guess would be that they are and it probably aligns with some form of climate event.

Don't tell HVC but I'm a slight Qing apologist :ph34r: But it does broadly align with the 30 Years War etc.

Didn't historians come up with 536 as the worst year in recorded history?

Like everything went to pot thanks to volcanic eruptions in the Pacific. The year is supposedly the reason the "Fimbulvinter" is in Norse mythology. The endless winter. Which again inspired a certain writer to write books about wars about an iron throne. So it wasn't all bad.  :cool:

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 27, 2024, 02:06:21 PM

Quote from: Josquius on August 27, 2024, 01:49:50 PMI do wonder whether there's a 40 year period af some point in history where the stars align and bad shit goes down for basically every corner of the world.

My guess would be that they are and it probably aligns with some form of climate event.

Don't tell HVC but I'm a slight Qing apologist :ph34r: But it does broadly align with the 30 Years War etc.

I knew it! :angry: :P

What's your beef schezhuan with the Chinese, HVC?

Quote from: Norgy on August 27, 2024, 04:11:13 PMWhat's your beef schezhuan with the Chinese, HVC?

China/PRC specifically. They lie about everything and some *cough* Shelibh *cough* believe them ( :P ).  Plus there the humanitarian issues and overall geopolitical threat.

Right. Carry on!

Quote from: Razgovory on August 25, 2024, 11:57:17 AMWhat I'm curious about is what are the big scientific and technological advances of the last 40 years.  In the last 25 years in particular, it seems we haven't had much.  I find it very disappointing. I can't help but feel that could be making strides in genetic engineering, but have been stymied by laws and public hysteria.

40 years ago a smart phone would have sounded like something out of science fiction: a device which fits in your pocket which can be a phone (a Jetson's phone for that matter), compass, phone, camera, video camera, calculator, notepad, photo album as well as having access to a vast library of books, music and movies and can facilitates all manner of commerce.  That we use such a marvelous technology mostly to spread conspiracy theories, watch cat videos and film ourselves eating detergent pods would probably have sounded equally preposterous.

 ;)

When I started my career (1994) a cellular switch was a floor of an office building, today it's a server you can mount on a 19" rack.  19.2 Kbps of data transmission was the theoretical maximum of data throughput on a cellular modem; today it's 10 Gbps (downlink; uplink is slower but still over 100 Mbps.)  This is due to a series of incremental changes, rather than something revolutionary (like going from steam power to electricity or telegraph to telephone or relays and vacuum tubes to transistors) so it's less jarring.

Quote from: Josquius on August 27, 2024, 01:49:50 PMAnything better out there? The last days of rome lining up with one of china's divided periods?

I believe Tim posted an article about a volcanic eruption disrupting agriculture around the time of the last days of Rome, and there were also effects felt elsewhere in the world.

Quote from: Savonarola on September 01, 2024, 05:10:10 PM40 years ago a smart phone would have sounded like something out of science fiction: a device which fits in your pocket which can be a phone (a Jetson's phone for that matter), compass, phone, camera, video camera, calculator, notepad, photo album as well as having access to a vast library of books, music and movies and can facilitates all manner of commerce.  That we use such a marvelous technology mostly to spread conspiracy theories, watch cat videos and film ourselves eating detergent pods would probably have sounded equally preposterous.

Yes.
Not even this far.
When we have the ability to video call distant relatives on the other side of the world... in practice that's largely just done by pensioners. Most young people just use it to send text only messages to people a few doors away.
Alongside the heightened technology in calling we've seen a cultural move completely the other direction.

To me the most fascinating sucky period is the plague and Byzantium and Persia completely exhausting each other before the Muslim initial surge. Fascinating what-if of what would have happened if that storm hit against less unstable empires.

Quote from: Tamas on September 02, 2024, 02:50:54 AMTo me the most fascinating sucky period is the plague and Byzantium and Persia completely exhausting each other before the Muslim initial surge. Fascinating what-if of what would have happened if that storm hit against less unstable empires.

That is a really fascinating period. One that usually isn't taught in history classes here. The Sasanians were looking impossible to fall before that long war. Correct me if I am wrong, but I have not read much that indicate that the Arab invasion and incursions were tactically different from what the Bedouins and Arabs had done before. The two empires were just fully bled out.
I think the sources also mention that the silk road trade was disrupted and that taxation was heavy on those left in both empires.
So, when a new power emerged, with a softer hand, conversions came easily. At least that is my understanding.

Quote from: Norgy on September 02, 2024, 04:50:19 AM

Quote from: Tamas on September 02, 2024, 02:50:54 AMTo me the most fascinating sucky period is the plague and Byzantium and Persia completely exhausting each other before the Muslim initial surge. Fascinating what-if of what would have happened if that storm hit against less unstable empires.

That is a really fascinating period. One that usually isn't taught in history classes here. The Sasanians were looking impossible to fall before that long war. Correct me if I am wrong, but I have not read much that indicate that the Arab invasion and incursions were tactically different from what the Bedouins and Arabs had done before. The two empires were just fully bled out.
I think the sources also mention that the silk road trade was disrupted and that taxation was heavy on those left in both empires.
So, when a new power emerged, with a softer hand, conversions came easily. At least that is my understanding.

Yeah, the hand of the Church was heavy in Byzantium, on top of already-high state taxes.  Losing that burden, combined with the claims of the equality of all Muslims, made conversion attractive, and the ease of conversion added to the pace of conversion.