Chapter 14 Chapter Thirteen The Mother of Needs
On July 3, 1908, a group of archaeologists excavating the ancient Minoan palace of Phaistos on the island of Crete stumbled upon one of the most remarkable objects in the history of technology.It may seem unremarkable at first glance, just a small, flat, unpainted disk of baked clay, 6.5 inches in diameter.If you look closely, you will find that each side of the disc is covered with characters, and the characters fall on a curve, and the curve spirals clockwise from the edge of the disc to the center of the disc, with a total of 5 circles. .A total of 241 alphabetic symbols are neatly divided into groups by carved vertical lines, and each group contains several different symbols, which probably form the words.The author must have carefully designed and made the disc so that writing from the edge of the disc fills the entire available space along the spiral, yet there is just enough space when reaching the center of the disc (see next panel) .
Since its unearthed, the disk has been a mystery to the historians of writing.
The number of different symbols (45) suggests that this is a syllabic script and an alphabetic script, but it remains unexplained, and the form of the signs is different from that of any other known writing system.In the 89 years since its discovery, not even sporadic fragments of this strange script have appeared again.Whether it represented a native venin of Crete, or an imported immigrant into Crete from other places, therefore remains unknown.
One side of the double-sided phaistos disc
To historians of technology, this Phaestos disc is even more puzzling; its date is estimated at 1700 BC, making it the world's earliest printed document.The symbols on the disk were not inscribed by hand, as in all the later Linear A and B texts of Crete, but were stamped with raised lead-like symbols on soft clay Stamped (the clay is then dried to harden).The printer apparently had a set of at least 45 stamps, one for each symbol on the disk.Making these seals necessarily took a lot of labor, and they certainly weren't made just to print this one document.Those who use these seals probably have a lot to write about.With these seals, the owner of the seal can reproduce them much more quickly and neatly than he or she can match the intricate symbols that write every word everywhere.
The Phaistos Disc pioneered the next printing industry for mankind.Because printing also uses typefaces or printing plates, but it is printed directly on paper with ink, instead of printing on clay without ink.However, these subsequent attempts did not appear in China until 2,500 years later, and in medieval Europe after 3,100 years.Why was this precocious technology of the disc not widely adopted in Crete or other places in the ancient Mediterranean?Why was its method of printing invented in Crete around 1700 BC, and not some other time in Mesopotamia, Mexico, or any other ancient writing center?Why then did it take thousands of years to add the idea of using ink and a printing press to get the printing press?This is how the disc becomes an aggressive challenge to the historian.If inventions are as unique and elusive as the disk seems to suggest, then efforts to synthesize the history of technology may be doomed from the start.
Technology, in the form of weapons and means of transport, provided the immediate means by which some peoples expanded their domains and conquered others.This makes technology the main cause of the broadest pattern in history.But why did Eurasians and not Indians or sub-Saharan Africans invent firearms, ocean-going ships, and steel equipment?This difference extended to most other technological advances, from the printing press to glass and the steam engine.Why are all these inventions Eurasian?Although some of the world's richest deposits of copper and iron are in New Guinea and Australia respectively, why are all New Guineans and native Australians still using them in 1800 AD in Eurasia, Africa thousands of years ago? The kind of stone tools that were mostly abandoned?All these facts explain why so many laymen take it for granted that Eurasians are creatively and intellectually superior to other peoples.
On the other hand, if there aren't any such differences in human neurobiology to account for differences in technological development across continents, what can?Another view is based on the hero theory of invention.Technological progress seems to depend especially on a few very rare geniuses such as James Watt, Thomas Edison and the Wright brothers.They were either Europeans or descendants of Europeans who immigrated to the United States.Archimedes and some other rare geniuses of antiquity were also Europeans.Could such a genius be born in or in Namibia?Is the history of technology determined only by the accidental factors of the birthplace of a few inventors?
Another point of view is that this is not a question of individual creativity, but a question of the acceptance of new things by the whole society.Some societies are hopelessly conservative, introverted, and hostile to change.Many Westerners get the impression that they want to help the people of the third world, but they end up being discouraged.Third world people seem absolutely intelligent as individuals; the problem seems to be their society.How else to explain why the aborigines of northeastern Australia did not adopt bows and arrows?And they had seen the Torres Strait islanders with whom they traded with bows and arrows.Perhaps all societies across the continent are not accepting of new things, and that accounts for the slow pace of technological development there?In this chapter, we will finally address one of the central questions of this book: the question of why technology evolves at different rates on different continents.
The starting point for our discussion is the common view expressed by the adage "necessity is the mother of invention".That is, an invention may arise because of an unmet need in society: the general recognition that a certain technology is unsatisfactory or of limited utility.The would-be inventor, driven by the prospect of money and fame, senses this need and strives to satisfy it.Some inventor finally came up with a superior solution to the existing unsatisfactory technology.If the solution fits with society's values and is compatible with other technologies, society will adopt it.
Quite a few inventions do not fit the commonsense view that necessity is the mother of invention. In 1942, while World War II was still raging, the U.S. government created the Manhattan Project with the apparent aim of inventing the technology needed to build the atomic bomb before the Nazis did. Three years later, the plan was successful, costing a total of $2 billion (equivalent to more than $20 billion today).Other examples include Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin in 1794 to replace the laborious manual labor of stripping the lint from cotton grown in the southern United States, and Watt's invention of the steam engine in 1769 The problem of pumping water in coal mines.
These familiar examples lead us to believe that other great inventions also serve perceived needs.In fact, many or most inventions are made by people driven by curiosity or tinkerers, without any need for the product they had in mind.
Once a device is invented, the inventor has to find a place for it.Only after it has been used for a considerable period of time will consumers feel they "need" it.There are also devices that were originally invented for one purpose only, but end up finding most of their use for other, unanticipated purposes.The inventions sought to be used include most of the major technological breakthroughs of the modern era, from the airplane and the automobile to the internal combustion engine and the light bulb to the phonograph and the transistor.It may come as a surprise to learn this.Therefore, invention is often the mother of necessity, not the other way around.
A good example is the history of Thomas Edison's invention of the phonograph.The phonograph is the most ingenious invention of the greatest inventor of modern times.When Edison created his first phonograph in 1877, he published an article proposing 10 uses for his invention.They include preserving the last words of the dying, recording books for the blind to hear, telling the time to clocks and teaching spelling.Music reproduction does not rank high among the uses he cites.A few years later, Ebenson told his assistant that his invention had no commercial value.Within a few years, he changed his mind and started a business selling gramophones—but as office dictating machines.While other entrepreneurs converted phonographs into coin-operated jukeboxes that played popular music, Edison objected to the misuse of his invention because it clearly demeaned its serious use in the office.It was only some 20 years later that Edison grudgingly admitted that the primary use of his phonograph was to record and play back music.
The motor vehicle is another invention whose use seems obvious today.However, it was not invented to satisfy any need.When Nikolaus Otto built his first 4-stroke gasifier engine in 1866, horses had been used for nearly 6,000 years to meet people's land transportation needs. This decade was increasingly supplemented by steam-powered railways.There was no crisis in acquiring horses, nor was there any dissatisfaction with the railroads.
Otto was no more preferable than a horse due to its small engine power, bulkiness and height of 7 feet.It wasn't until 1885 that engine improvements allowed Gottlieb Daimler to build his first motorcycle by installing an engine on a bicycle; he waited until 1896 to build his first truck.
In 1905, the motor vehicle was still an expensive and unreliable plaything for the rich.Public satisfaction with horses and railroads remained high until World War I when the military decided it really needed trucks.Postwar truck manufacturers and the military lobbied heavily to convince the public of their need for motorized vehicles, allowing trucks to begin replacing horse-drawn carriages in industrialized countries.Even in America's largest cities, the change took 50 years.
Inventors often had to hang on to their tinkering work for long periods of time without public demand because their early prototypes were too poor to be useful.The earliest cameras, typewriters, and televisions were as daunting as Otto's 7-foot-tall internal combustion engine.This makes it difficult for inventors to know whether their dreaded prototype will eventually be usable, and thus should invest more time and money into its development.The United States issues about 70,000 patent certificates each year, but only a small number of patents finally reach the stage of commercial production.For every great invention that ends up being used, countless others go unused.Even some inventions originally designed to satisfy a specific need may later prove more valuable in satisfying an unexpected need.Although James.Watt designed his steam engine to pump water from coal mines, but it soon powered cotton mills.
Thus, the commonsense view of invention that is used as a starting point for our discussion turns the usual roles and needs of inventions upside down.It also exaggerates the importance of rare geniuses like Watt and Edison.The so-called "hero theory of invention" is encouraged by patent law because applying for a patent must demonstrate that the invention being submitted is novel.Inventors belittle or ignore previous work for financial motives.From the patent attorney's point of view, the best inventions are the ones that have no precedent, like Athena jumping out of Zeus' forehead in its entirety.
Indeed, even for some of the most famous and apparently defining inventions of the modern age, there is a shadow of neglected precedent behind the blunt statement that "so and there invented something."For example, we often hear people say, "James Watt invented the steam engine in 1769" and he is said to have been inspired by seeing steam coming from the spout of a kettle.It's a fantastic story, but alas, Watt's idea of building his own steam engine actually came about while he was repairing one of Thomas Newcomen's prototypes. 'This steam engine Newcomen had invented 57 years ago, and by the time Watt repaired it, England had produced more than 100 units.And Newcomen's steam engine was only available after the British Thomas Savery obtained the patent right in 1698, but before Savery obtained the patent right, the French Danny Papon had already designed it around 1680. The steam engine was invented (but not built), and Papon's design ideas came from his predecessor, the Dutch scientist Christian Huygens and others.All this is not to deny that Watt greatly improved Newcomen's steam engine (incorporating a separate steam condenser with a reciprocating cylinder), just as Newcomen had greatly improved Savery's.
A similar history of development can be told for all well-documented modern inventions.It is customary to think that the inventive hero emulates some previous inventor who has the same goal and has devised some design, built some working prototype or (like Newcomen's steam engine) A prototype that can be successfully put into commercial use.Edison's famous "invention" of the incandescent light bulb on the night of October 21, 1879, was simply an improvement over the many other incandescent light bulbs patented by other inventors from 1841 to 1878.Likewise, the manned plane of the Wright Brothers was preceded by Otto Lilienthal's manned unpowered glider and Samuel Langley's unmanned powered plane; in Samuel Morse's telegraph The telegraph of Joseph Henry, William Cook, and Charles Wheatstone preceded it; and Eli Whitney's short-staple (inland) cotton gin was only a few thousand years old Sea island) The expansion of the application range of the cotton gin.None of this is to deny that Watt, Edison, the Wright Brothers, Morse, and Whitney made vast improvements that increased or opened up the chances of commercial success.The invention may have taken a different form without the contribution of the acknowledged inventor.But the question we're talking about is whether the broad patterns of world history would have changed significantly if certain geniuses hadn't been born somewhere and at a certain time.The answer is clear: there never was such a person.All recognized famous inventors have had some capable predecessors and successors, and they improved on the original invention at a time when society could use their results.As we shall see, the tragedy of the hero who improved upon the seal used for the Phaistos disc was that he or she invented something that society at the time could not make use of on a large scale.
The examples I have given so far are all from modern technology, because the history of modern technology development is well known.My two main conclusions are: that technology develops over time, not by isolated heroic acts; and that technology is largely used when it is invented, rather than invented to satisfy a foreseen need.If these two conclusions are applied to the undocumented history of ancient technological development, it will be much more convincing.When Ice Age hunter-gatherers noticed the remains of burnt sand and limestone in their hearths, they could not have foreseen that this long-term accumulation of serendipitous discoveries would lead to the earliest Roman glass windows (c. ), and this accumulation progressed from the earliest items with translucent thin coatings (around 4000 BC), to the earliest independent glass-like objects in Egypt and Mesopotamia ( 2500 or so), to the earliest glassware (c. 1500 BC).
We don't know much about how the earliest known thin translucent coatings on surfaces themselves were created.However, we can infer prehistoric methods of invention by looking at technologically "primitive" groups today, such as those New Guineans with whom I work.I have already mentioned that they know hundreds of species of local plants and animals, whether each one is edible, its medicinal value and other uses.The New Guineans also told me about the dozens of types of stone around them, telling me about each one's hardness, color, condition when hammered or chipped, and various uses.All this knowledge is gained through observation and trial and error.Whenever I take New Guineans to work far from their homelands, I see this process of "invention" in action.They kept picking up unfamiliar things in the forest, playing with them in their hands, and taking them home when they found something useful.I saw the same process when I abandoned camp and locals came running to find something useful among the discards.They played with my discarded things, trying to figure out if they were useful in New Guinea society.The purpose of discarded tinplate is easy to determine: they end up being reused as containers.Others are tested and used for purposes entirely different from those for which they were originally made.Wouldn't it look nice to insert that yellow No. 2 pencil into the pierced earlobe and nasal septum as decorations?Is that piece of broken glass sharp and strong enough to use as a knife?
The raw materials that the ancients could use were all natural materials, such as stone, wood, bone, animal skin, fiber, clay, sand, limestone and minerals, of various kinds and in large quantities.From these materials, people gradually learned to make tools from certain kinds of stone, wood and bone; to make pottery and bricks from certain clays; Existing pure soft metals such as copper and gold were processed, later metals were extracted from ores, and finally hard metals such as bronze and iron were processed.
A good example of a trial-and-error development process is the production of gunpowder and gasoline from raw materials.Natural products that can burn are bound to attract attention, such as a resin-rich log detonating in a campfire.By 2000 BC, people in Mesopotamia were extracting large quantities of oil by heating natural bitumen.The ancient Greeks discovered that various mixtures of oil and pitch, resin, sulfur, and quicklime could be used as fire weapons fired from ballistas, bows, fire bombs, and ships.The technique of distillation invented by medieval Islamic alchemists for the production of alcohol and perfume also enabled them to distill petroleum into fractions, some of which proved to be even more powerful combustion agents.Launched with grenades, rockets and explosive devices, these incendiaries played a key role in Islam's eventual victory over the Crusaders.Before this, the Chinese had also observed that a special mixture of sulfur, charcoal, and saltpeter was particularly explosive. This mixture was called gunpowder.An Islamic treatise on chemistry around 1100 AD describes 7 formulations of gunpowder, while a treatise from 1280 AD mentions over 70 formulations for different purposes (one for rockets, another for cannons).
As for petroleum distillation after the Middle Ages, chemists in the 19th century discovered that middle distillates could be used as fuel for oil lamps.These chemists discarded the most volatile fraction (gasoline) as a useless waste product—until it was later discovered that it was an ideal fuel for internal combustion engines.Who today remembers that gasoline, the fuel of modern civilization, was just another invention seeking use?
Once an inventor discovers a use for a new technology, the next step is to convince society to adopt it.Just having a bigger, faster, more efficient working device doesn't guarantee that people will accept it.Countless such technologies have either not been adopted at all, or have only been adopted after prolonged resistance.Notorious examples of this include the refusal of the United States Congress in 1971 to consider funding the development of supersonic transport; the continued worldwide rejection of an efficient typewriter keyboard design; and the longstanding reluctance in Britain to adopt electric lighting.So, what is it that drives society to embrace inventions?
Let us first compare the receptivity of different inventions within the same society.As a result, at least 4 factors affect the acceptance of an invention.
The first, and most obvious factor, is the relative economic benefit compared to existing techniques.While the wheel is very useful in modern industrial societies, it is not the case in some other societies.Indigenous Mexicans in ancient times invented carts with axles and wheels, but that was for toys, not transportation.This seems inconceivable to us, until we remember that the ancient Mexicans had no animals to hitch their carts on wheels, so the carts had no advantage over porters.
The second consideration is social value and prestige, which can be done regardless of economic interests (or lack thereof).Millions of people today go out to buy branded jeans that cost twice as much as regular jeans that last as long—because the social prestige of the brand name is worth more than the extra cost.Likewise, Japan continues to use its horribly cumbersome kanji writing system rather than the efficient alphabet or Japan's own efficient kana syllabary - because the social prestige associated with kanji is simply too great .
Another factor is vested interests.This book, like probably every other typed document you'll ever read, was printed on a standard push typewriter keyboard, so named for the top leftmost six letters.Although it sounds unbelievable now, this arrangement of typewriter keyboards was devised in 1873 as a feat of reverse engineering.It uses a series of deliberate tricks designed to force the typist to type as slowly as possible, such as splitting out the most commonly used letter keys and grouping them on the left (right-handers must use their unaccustomed left hand) .The real reason for these seemingly counterproductive features is this: If you strike adjacent keys in quick succession on a typewriter like the one invented in 1873, the chains snap together, so the people who made the typewriter had to make the typewriter Man slows down typing.When improvements in typewriters solved the problem of stuck keys, experiments in 1932 with keyboards designed for efficiency showed that it could double our typing speed and reduce the amount of effort we needed to type by 95%.But by this time, the vested interests of the millions of typists who owned the standard typewriter keyboard, those who taught typing, typewriter and computer salesmen, and the manufacturers of the typewriter had suppressed for years all efforts to improve the efficiency of the typewriter keyboard.
While this story about a standard typewriter keyboard may sound comical, many of the same examples have far greater economic consequences.Although the transistor was invented and patented in the United States, why is it that Japan now controls the world's transistorized electronic consumer product market, thereby destroying the balance of payments between the United States and Japan?Because at a time when the American consumer electronics industry was struggling to produce vacuum tubes and was unwilling to compete with its own products, Japan's Sony Corporation bought Western Electric's franchise.Why were British cities still using gas to light their streets until the 1920s, long after American and German cities had switched to electric lights?Because some municipalities in the UK have invested heavily in gas lighting, thus creating an administrative hurdle for competing electric light companies.
A final consideration affecting the acceptance of new technologies is the ease with which their advantages can be seen.In 1340 AD, before firearms had reached most of Europe, the Earls of Derby and Salisbury in England happened to meet the Spanish Battle of Tarifa, in which the Arabs used cannon against the Spaniards.Impressed by what they saw, the two earls introduced cannon to the British army, who enthusiastically adopted them and used them against French soldiers at the Battle of Crecy six years later.
Thus, the wheel, the labeled jeans, and the standard typewriter keyboard illustrate different reasons why all inventions are not equally acceptable to the same society.Conversely, the acceptance of the same invention varies widely among contemporary societies.We are all familiar with the imagined general law that rural Third World societies are less receptive to new things than Westernized industrial societies.Even within the industrialized world, some regions are much more receptive than others.If such differences exist across continents, they may explain why some continents develop technology faster than others.For example, if all Aboriginal societies in Australia were for some reason resistant to change, that might explain why they continued to use stone tools when metal tools appeared on every other continent.How do differences in receptivity between societies arise?
Historians of technology have come up with a long list of at least 14 illustrative factors.One factor is the increased life expectancy, which should in principle not only give would-be inventors the patience and confidence to plan long-term, deferred-benefit developments, but also allow them years to accumulate technology Knowledge.Thus, the greatly increased life expectancy brought about by modern medicine may have accelerated the pace of recent inventions.
The next five factors relate to the economy and organization of society: (1) The availability of cheap slave labor in classical times presumably hampered inventions at that time, while high wages or labor shortages now play a role in the search for technological solutions stimulating effect.A change in immigration policy, for example, could cut off a source of cheap Mexican seasonal labor for California farms, but that possibility has encouraged the development of machine-harvestable tomato varieties in California. (2) In the modern West, patents and other property laws that protect the inventor's ownership reward invention, while in modern China, the lack of such protection hinders invention. (3) The modern industrial society provides a large number of technical training opportunities, which the Islamic countries in the Middle Ages did, but the modern Zaire did not. (4) Unlike the economy of ancient Rome, the modern capitalist system makes it possible to pay off for investing in technological development. (5) Whereas the strong individualism of American society allows accomplished inventors to make money for themselves, the strong family ties of New Guinea ensure that once one starts making money one is joined by a dozen relatives who are counting on moving in to eat and live together share.
Four other conceivable explanations are ideological, not economic or organizational: (1) The risk-taking behavior necessary for innovative endeavors is more common in some societies than in others. (2) The scientific point of view is a unique feature of post-Renaissance European society, and this feature has indeed contributed to the preeminence of modern technology in European society. (3) Tolerance to various views and heterodox views promotes innovation, while strong traditional views (such as China's emphasis on ancient Chinese classics) stifle innovation. (4) Religions vary widely in their relationship to technological innovation: certain sects of Judaism and Christianity are said to be particularly compatible with technological innovation, while certain sects of Islam, Hinduism, and Brahmanism may be particularly incompatible with technological innovation compatible.
All 10 assumptions seem to make sense.But none of them have any necessary connection to geography.If patents, capitalism, and certain religions really contributed to technology, what determined the emergence of these factors in post-medieval Europe rather than in contemporary China or India?
At least, the direction in which these 10 factors influence technology seems clear.The remaining four proposed factors—war, centralized government, climate, and abundant resources—seem to play inconsistent roles: sometimes they promote technology, sometimes they inhibit it. (1) War has often been a major factor in promoting technological innovation throughout history.For example, huge investments in nuclear weapons during World War II and in airplanes and trucks during World War I opened up whole new technological frontiers.But war can also bring devastating setbacks to technological development. (2) Strong centralized government promoted technology in Germany and Japan in the late 19th century, but inhibited it in China after 1500 AD. (3) Many Nordics believe that technology thrives in harsh climates, because there is no way to live without it, and withers in milder climates, because there is no need to wear clothes, and Bananas will presumably fall from the tree too.A counter-view holds that a favorable environment frees people from the relentless struggle for survival and allows them to concentrate on innovation. (4) People have been debating whether it is the abundance of environmental resources or the shortage of environmental resources that promotes technological development.Abundant resources could facilitate the development of inventions that exploit these ideas, such as water milling in rainy Nordic regions with many rivers—but why didn't water milling develop more rapidly in even wetter New Guinea?Some people think that the destruction of British forests is the reason for its early leadership in coal mining technology, but why did deforestation in China not have the same result?
The above discussion is not exhaustive of the various reasons that have been proposed to explain why societies differ in their acceptance of new technologies.Worse, none of these roughly accurate explanations takes into account the ultimate factors behind them.It may seem as if our attempts to understand the course of history have been frustrated, for technology has undoubtedly been one of history's most powerful driving forces.Now, however, I would say that the diversity of independent factors affecting technological innovation actually makes it easier, not harder, to understand the broad patterns of history.
The main question in the long list, so far as this book is concerned, is whether the factors affecting technological innovation differ across the board from continent to continent, thereby contributing to differences in technological development across continents. difference.Most laymen and many historians agree that the answer is yes, some explicitly and some implicitly.For example, it is widely believed that Aboriginal Australians as a group had only ideologically common traits that contributed to their technological backwardness: they were (or are) presumably conservative, lived in an imaginary golden age of world creation, Instead of paying attention to practical ways to improve the present.A leading historian of Africa described Africans as introverted, lacking the desire to expand that Europeans had.
However, all such claims are based on pure speculation.The many societies on each of the two continents with the same socioeconomic conditions have not yet been studied to demonstrate the overall ideological differences between the peoples of the two continents.People usually use a circular argument: because there are technical differences, corresponding ideological differences can be inferred.
In fact, I have often observed in New Guinea that indigenous societies there differed widely from each other in prevailing views.Like industrialized Europe and the United States, traditional New Guinea had conservative societies that resisted new ways of life, although they lived alongside creative societies that selectively adopted them.As a result, with the importation of Western technology, the more innovative societies are now using Western technology to conquer their conservative neighbors.
For example, when Europeans first arrived in the eastern highlands of New Guinea in the 1930s, they "discovered" dozens of previously uncontacted Stone Age tribes, including the Chimbu who were adopting Western technology particularly positive.When the Chimbu saw white immigrants planting coffee, they began to grow coffee as a cash crop. In 1964, I met a 50-year-old Chimbu man who was illiterate and wore a traditional hula skirt.Although he was born into a society that still used stone tools, he made his fortune growing coffee.他用赚来的10万美元现款买下了一个锯木厂，还买下了一队卡车，用来把他的咖啡和木材运往市场。相比之下，同我一起工作8年之久的一个相邻的高原民族——达里比族，就特别保守，对新技术毫无兴趣。当第一架直升机在达里比人的地区降落时，他们只是很快地看了它一眼，然后回去继续于他们的活；如果是钦布人，他们就会为租用它来讨价还价。结果，钦布人现在正迁入达里比人的地区，把他们的土地接收过去改为种植园，并把达里比入变成为他们干活的劳工。
其他每一个大陆都有这种情况，某些土著社会证明有很强的接受力，它们有选择地采纳外来的生活方式和技术，并成功地使之融入自己的社会。在尼日利亚，伊博族同新几内亚的钦布族一样，成了当地富于进取心的族群。今天美国人数最多的印第安部落是纳瓦霍族，在欧洲人来到时，他们不过是几百个部落中的一个。但纳瓦霍人的适应能力特别强，并能有选择地对待新事物。他们把西方的染料和自己的纺织结合起来，他们做银匠和农场工人，现在虽然仍住在传统的住宅里，但已学会了开卡车。
同样，在据称保守的澳大利亚土著中，既有接受能力强的社会，也有保守的社会。一个极端是塔斯马尼亚人，他们仍旧在使用石器，而这种工具在几万年前的欧洲即已为别的工具所代替，就是在澳洲大陆的大部分地区也已不再使用。另一极端是澳大利亚东南部的一些以捕鱼为生的土著群体，他们发明了管理鱼群的复杂技术，包括修建沟渠、鱼梁和渔栅。
因此，即使在同一个大陆上，各社会之间在发展和接受新事物方而也是大不相同的。即使是在同一个社会内，在时间上也会有所不同。现在，中东的伊斯兰社会相对而言比较保守，并不居于技术的最前列。但同一地区的中世纪伊斯兰教社会在技术上却是先进的，是能够接受新事物的。它的识字率比同时代的欧洲高得多；它吸收了古典的希腊文明的遗产，以致许多古典的希腊书籍只是通过阿拉伯文的译本才为我们所知；它发明了或精心制作了风车、用潮水推动的碾磨、三角学和大三角帆；它在冶金术、机械工程、化学工程和灌溉方法等方面取得了重大的进步；它采用了中国的纸和火药，又把它们传到欧洲。在中世纪，技术绝大多数是从伊斯兰世界流向欧洲，而不是像今天那样从欧洲流向伊斯兰世界。只是在公元1500年左右以后，技术的最终流向才开始逆转。
中国的发明创造也是引入注目地随着时间而起伏不定。直到公元1450年左右，中国在技术上比欧洲更富于革新精神，也先进得多，甚至也大大超过了中世纪的伊斯兰世界。中国的一系列发明包括运河闸门、铸铁、深钻技术、有效的牲口挽具、火药、风筝、磁罗盘、活字、瓷器、印刷（不算菲斯托斯圆盘）、船尾舵和独轮车。接着，中国就不再富于革新精神，其原因我们将在本书的后记中加以推断。相反，我们倒是把西欧及其衍生的北美社会看作是领导现代世界的技术创新，但直到中世纪后期，西欧的技术仍然没有旧大陆任何其他“文明”地区那样先进。
因此，认为有些大陆的社会总是富于创新精神，有些大陆的社会总是趋于保守，这种说法是不正确的。在任何时候，在任何大陆上都有富于创新精神的社会，也有保守的社会。此外，在同一个地区内，对新事物的接受能力迟早会产生波动。
细想起来，如果一个社会的创新精神决定于许多独立的因素，那么这些结论就完全是人们可能期望的结论。如果对所有这些因素没有详尽的了解，创新精神就成了不可预测的东西。因此，一些社会科学家在继续争论：为什么在伊斯兰世界、中国和欧洲对新事物的接受能力会发生变化？为什么钦布人、伊傅人和纳瓦霍人比他们的邻居更容易接受新事物？这些情况的具体原因是什么？然而，对研究广泛的历史模式的人来说，这些情况的具体原因是什么。这并不重要。影响创新精神的各种各样的因素，反而使历史学家的任务变得更加容易起来，他只要把社会之间在创新精神方面的差异转换为基本上一种随机变量就行了。这就是说，在任何特定时间里的一个相当大的区域内（如整个大陆），总会有一定数量的社会可能是富于创新精神的。
创新实际上来自何方？除了过去的几个完全与世隔绝的社会外，对所有社会来说，许多或大多数技术都不是当地发明的，而是从其他社会借来的。当地发明与借用技术的相对重要性，主要决定于两个因素：发明某个技术的容易程度以及某个社会与其他社会的接近程度。
有些发明是通过处理天然原料而直接产生的。这些发明在世界史上的不同地点和时间曾有过多次独立的发展。有一个例子我们已经仔细考虑过了，这就是至少在9个地方独立进行的对植物的驯化。另一个例子是陶器。陶器的产生可能来自对粘土这种十分普遍的天然材料在晒干或受热时的变化所作的观察。陶器在大约14000年前出现于日本，不迟于大约1万年前出现于新月沃地和中国，以后又出现于亚马孙河地区、非洲的萨赫勒地带、美国东南部和墨西哥。
一个困难得多的发明的例子是文字。文字的发明不是通过对任何天然材料的观察。我们在第十二章看到，文字只有几次是独立发明出来的，而字母在世界史上显然只产生过一次。其他一些困难的发明包括水轮、转磨、齿轮装置、磁罗盘、风车和照相机暗箱，所有这些在旧大陆只发明过一次或两次，而在新大陆则从未发明过。
这些复杂的发明通常是靠借用而得到的，因为它们的传播速度要比在当地独立发明的速度快。一个明显的例子是轮子。得到证明的最早的轮子于公元前3400年左右出现在黑海附近，接着在几个世纪内又在欧洲和亚洲的许多地区出现。所有这些旧大陆的早期轮子都有一种独特的设计：一个由3块厚木板拼成的实心因盘，而不是一个带有辐条的轮圈。相比之下，印第安社会的唯—一种轮子（画在墨西哥的陶器上）则是用一块木板做成的，由此可见，这是轮子的第二个独立的发明——就像人们从新大陆与旧大陆文明相隔绝的其他证据可以预料到的那样。
没有人认为，人类史在经过了没有轮子的700万年之后，不意在旧大陆的许多独立地点，于相隔不到几百年的时间内，竟多次出现了旧大陆的那种独特设计的轮子。实际上，想必是这种轮子的功用使它在旧大陆从唯一的发明地由东向西迅速传播。旧大陆在古代还有其他一些复杂的技术从一个西亚发源地由东向西传播的例子，其中包括门锁、滑轮、转磨、风车，还有字母。新大陆的技术传播的例子是冶金术，它是从安第斯山脉地区经巴拿马传到中美洲的。
一个用途广泛的发明在一个社会出现后，接着它便往往以两种方式向外传播。一种方式是：其他社会看到或听说了这个发明，觉得可以接受，于是便采用了。另一种方式是：没有这种发明的社会发现与拥有这种发明的社会相比自己处于劣势，如果这种劣势大到一定程度，它们就会被征服并被取而代之。一个简单的例子是火枪在新西兰毛利人部落之间的传播。其中有一个叫恩加普希的部落于1818年左右从欧洲商人那里得到了火枪。在其后的15年中，新西兰被所谓的火枪战争搞得天翻地覆，没有火枪的部落要么也去弄到火枪，要么被已经用火枪武装起来的部落所征服。结果，到1833年火枪技术传遍了整个新西兰；所有幸存的毛利人部落这时都已有了火枪。
如果一些社会从发明某项新技术的社会采用了这项技术，这时技术传播的情况可能各不相同，其中包括和平贸易（如1954年晶体管从美国传播到日本）、间谍活动（公元552年家蚕从东南亚偷运进中东）、移民（1685年被从法国驱逐出去的20万把法国的玻璃和服装制作技术传播到整个欧洲）和战争。最后一个至关重要的例子，是中国的造纸术传到了伊斯兰世界。其所以可能，是由于公元751年阿拉伯军队在中亚的塔拉斯河战役中打败了中国军队，在战俘中发现了一些造纸工匠，于是就把他们带到了撒马尔罕建立了造纸业。
我们在第十二章看到，文化的传播可能是通过详尽的“蓝图”，也可能是通过刺激重新发明细节的模糊思想。虽然第十二章说明的是传播文字的办法，但这些办法对传播技术也同样适用。上一段举的是蓝图复制的例子，而中国的瓷器制造技术传往欧洲则是一个长期传播的例子。瓷器是一种纹理细密的半透明陶器，于公元7世纪左右在中国发明。当瓷器于14世纪开始经丝绸之路到达欧洲时（当时还不知道它的制造方法），人们对它赞赏不已，并为仿制它进行了多次不成功的尝试。直到1707年，德国的炼金术士约翰·伯特格尔在用许多制作方法和把各种矿物同粘土混合起来进行了长期的试验之后，才偶然发现了解决办法，从而建立了如今名闻遐迩的迈森瓷器工厂。后来在法国和英格兰进行的或多或少独立的试验，产生了塞夫勒陶瓷、韦奇伍德陶器和斯波德陶器。因此，欧洲的陶瓷工匠必须为他们自己对中国的制作方法进行再创造，但他们这样做是由于在他们的面前有那些完美无暇的产品作为榜样从而刺激了他们的创作欲望。
社会的地理位置决定了它们接受来自其他社会的技术的容易程度是不同的。近代史上地球上最孤立的族群是塔斯马尼亚岛上的土著，他们生活在一个距离澳大利亚100英里的岛上，没有任何远洋水运工具，而澳大利亚本身就是一个最孤立的大陆。在过去1万年中，培斯马尼亚人同其他社会没有任何接触，除了他们自己的发明外，他们没有得到过任何技术。澳大利亚人和新几内亚人由于有印度尼西亚岛群把他们同亚洲大陆隔开，所以只能从亚洲得到一点零星的发明。在发明的传播中最容易接受发明的社会是大陆上的一些根基深厚的社会。在这些社会中技术发展最快，因为它们不但积累了自己的发明，而且也积累了其他社会的发明。例如，中世纪的伊斯兰社会，由于位居欧亚大陆的中央，既得到了印度和中国的发明，又承袭了希腊的学术。
技术传播和使技术传播成为可能的地理位置，这两者的重要性得到了一些从其他方面看简直难以理解的事实的充分证明，即有些社会竟然放弃了具有巨大作用的技术。我们往往想当然地认为，有用的技术一旦获得，就必然会流传下去，直到有更好的技术来取而代之。事实上，技术不但必须获得，而且也必须予以保持，而这也取决于许多不可预测的因素京。任何社会都要经历一些社会运动和社会时尚，此时一些没有经济价值的东西变得有价值起来，而一些有用的东西也变得暂时失去了价值。今天，当地球上几乎所有社会相互联系在一起的时候，我们无法想象某种时尚会发展到使人们竟然抛弃一项重要的技术。一个暂时反对一项具有巨大作用的技术的社会会继续看到它在被毗连的社会所使用，而且也会有机会在这技术传播时重新得到它（或者，如果不能做到达一点，那就会被毗连的社会所征服）。但这种时尚会在孤立的社会中历久而不衰。
一个著名的例子是日本放弃枪支。火器在公元1543年到达日本，当时有两个葡萄牙人携带火绳枪（原始的枪）乘坐一艘中国货船抵达。日本人对这种新式武器印象很深，于是就开始在本地制造，从而大大地改进了枪支制造技术，到公元1600年已比世界上任何其他国家拥有更多更好的枪支。
但也有一些因素不利于日本接受火器。这个国家有一个人数众多的武士阶层，对他们来说，刀是他们这个阶层的象征，也是艺术品（同时也是征服下层阶级的工具）。日本的战争以前都是使刀的武士之间面对面的个人搏斗，他们站在空地上，说几句老一套的话，然后以能体面地进行战斗而自豪。如果碰上农民出身的士兵手持枪支乒乒乓乓乱放一气，这种行为就是白送性命。而且，枪是外国的发明，越来越受到人们的鄙视，就像1600年后其他一些事物在日本受到鄙视一样。由武士控制的政府开始只允许几个城市生产枪支，然后又规定生产枪支需要获得政府的特许，再后来把许可证只发给为政府生产的枪支，最后又减少了政府对枪支的定货，直到日本又一次几乎没有实际可用的枪支。
在同时代的欧洲也有一些鄙视枪支并竭力限制枪支使用的统治者。但这些限制措施在欧洲并未发生多大作用，因为任何一个欧洲国家，哪怕是短暂地放弃了火器，很快就会被用枪支武装起来的邻国打垮。只是因为日本是一个人口众多的孤立的海岛，它才没有因为拒绝这种具有巨大作用的新军事技术而受到惩罚。1853年，美国海军准将佩里率领装备有许多大炮的舰队访问日本，使日本相信它有必要恢复枪支的制造，直到这时，日本因孤立而得到安全的状况才宣告结束。
日本拒绝枪支和中国抛弃远洋船只（以及抛弃机械钟和水力驱动纺纱机），是历史上孤立或半孤立社会技术倒退的著名例子。其他技术倒退的事情，在史前期也发生过。极端的例子世界技术最简陋的社会（第十五章）。澳大利亚土著可能采用过弓箭，后来又放弃了。托里斯海峡诸岛的岛民放弃了独木舟，而加瓦岛的岛民在放弃了独木舟后又重新采用。陶器在整个波利尼西亚都被放弃了。大多数波利尼西亚人和许多人在战争中放弃使用弓箭。极地因纽特人失去了弓箭和单人划子，而多塞特因纽特人则失去了弓箭、弓钻和狗。
这些例子我们初听起来会觉得希奇古怪，但它们却很好地证明了技术史上地理条件和技术传播的作用。如果没有技术的传播，得到的技术会更少，而丢失的现有技术会更多。
由于技术能产生更多的技术，一项发明的传播的重要性可能会超过原来这项发明的重要性。技术史为所谓自我催化过程提供了例证：就是说，由于这过程对自身的催化，它就以一种与时俱增的速度而加快。工业革命以来的技术爆炸给我们今天的人留下了深刻的印象，但中世纪的技术爆炸与青铜时代相比，同样会给人以深刻的印象，而青铜时代的技术发展又使旧石器时代晚期的技术发展相形见拙。
技术往往会催化自身的一个原因是：技术的进步决定于在这之前对一些比较简单的问题的掌握。例如，石器时代的农民不会直接开始炼铁和对铁进行加工，因为那必须有高温的炼铁炉才行。铁矿冶金术是人类几千年经验的结晶，人类开始时只是利用天然显露的软质纯金属（铜和金），在不需加热的情况下把它们捶打成形。它也是一些简单炉窑几千年发展的结果，这些炉窑用来烧制陶器，后来又被用来提炼钢矿和熔炼铜合金（青铜），因为做这些事不需要炼铁那样的高温。在新月沃地和中国，只是在有了大约2000年的青铜冶炼的经验之后，铁器才变得普遍起来。当欧洲人的到来缩短了新大陆的独立发展轨迹时，新大陆社会刚刚开始制造青铜器，还不曾开始制造铁器。
自我催化的另一个原因是：新技术和新材料通过重新结合可以产生更新的技术。例如，为什么印刷术的迅速传播发生在公元1455年谷登堡印刷了他的《圣经》之后的中世纪欧洲，而不是发生在公元前1700年那位无名的压印工印制了菲斯托斯圆盘之后？一部分原因是中世纪欧洲的印工能够把6项新技术结合起来，而这些新技术的大部分是非斯托斯圆盘的制作者无法得到的。在这些技术进步——纸、活字、冶金术、印刷机、油墨和文字中，纸和关于活字的思想是从中国传到欧洲的。谷登堡发明的用金属模子铸字的办法克服了字体大小不一这种致命的问题，而他的办法又决定于冶金术的许多发展成果：用以冲压字母的钢、做字模用的黄铜或青铜合金（后来用钢代替）、做铸模用的铅和做活字用的锡锌铅合金。谷登堡的印刷机来自榨酒和橄榄油的螺旋压床，而他的油墨则是在现有的墨水中加油改进而成。中世纪欧洲从3000年的字母发展中继承的字母文字适合于用活字印刷，因为只需浇铸几十个字母就行了，不像中国文字那样需用几千个语言符号。
在所有这6个方面，若要把具有巨大作用的技术结合成一个印刷系统，菲斯托斯圆盘制作者能够得到的机会要比谷登堡少得多。这个圆盘的书写材料是粘土，其体积和重量都比纸大得多。公元前1700年的克里特岛在冶金技术、油墨和印刷机方面比公元1455年的德国都要原始，因此菲斯托斯圆盘必须用手来压印，而不是用装在金届框子里的浇铸活字加上油墨来印刷。圆盘上的文字是一种音节文字，比谷登堡使用的罗马字母符号更多，结构也更复杂。结果，菲斯托斯圆盘的压印技术比谷登堡的印刷机笨拙得多，比手写也好不了多少。除了所有这些技术上的缺点外，在印制菲斯托斯圆盘的那个时候，掌握书写知识的只有少数几个宫廷和寺庙抄写员。因此，对圆盘制作者的精美产品几乎没有什么需求，对投资制作所需要的几十个手压印摸也几乎没有什么吸引力。相比之下，中世纪欧洲潜在的印刷品畅销市场则诱使许多投资者把钱借给谷登堡。
人类技术的发展是从不迟于250万年前使用的最早石器到1996年的激光印刷机，这种印刷机取代了我的业已过时的1992年的激光印刷机，并被用来印刷本书的手搞。开始时发展的速度慢得觉察不出来，几十万年过去了，我们的石器看不出有任何变化，用其他材料制造的物品也没有留下任何证据。今天，技术的发展非常迅速，报纸上天天都有报道。
在这漫长的加速发展的历史中，我们可以挑出两次意义特别重大的飞跃。第一次飞跃发生在10万年到5万年前，其所以能够发生，大概是由于我们身体的遗传变化，即人体的现代解剖学进化使现代语言或现代大脑功能或两者成为可能。这次飞跃产生了骨器、专用石器和复合工具。第二次飞跃来自我们选定的定居生活方式，这种生活方式在世界的不同地区发生的时间不同，在有些地区早在13000年前就发生了，在另一些地区即使在今天也还没有发生。就大多数情况而言，选定定居的生活方式是同我们采纳粮食生产联系在一起的，因为粮食生产要求我们留在我们的作物、果园和剩余粮食储备的近旁。
定居生活对技术史具有决定性的意义，因为这种生活使人们能够积累不便携带的财产。四处流浪的狩猎采集族群只能拥有可以携带的技术。如果你经常迁移而且又没有车辆或役畜，那么你的财产就只能是小孩、武器和最低限度的其他一些便于携带的小件必需品。你在变换营地时不能有陶器和印刷机之类的累赘。这种实际困难或许可以说明何以有些技术出现得惊人地早，接着停了很长时间才有了进一步的发展。例如，得到证明的最早的陶瓷艺术品是27000年前在现代捷克斯洛伐克地区用粘土烧制的人像，在时间上大大早于已知最早的用粘土烧制的容器（在14000年前的日本发现）。捷克斯洛伐克的同一地区在同一时间还出现了关于编织的迹象，但直到大约13000年前才出现了已知最早的篮子和大约9000年前出现了己知最早的布，这时最早编织的出现才得到了证明。尽管在很早的时候人们就已迈出了这几步，但在人们定居下来从而免去携带坛坛罐罐和织机的麻烦之前，无论是制陶还是编织都不会产生。
粮食生产使定居生活因而也使财产积累成为可能。不仅如此，由于另一个原因，粮食生产还在技术史上起了决定性的作用。它在人类进化中第一次使发展经济专业化社会成为可能，这种社会是由从事粮食生产的农民养活的不从事粮食生产的专门人员组成的。但我们在本书的第二部分中已经看到，粮食生产在不同的时间出现在不同的大陆。另外，我们在本章中也已看到，本地技术的发生和保持，不但要依靠本地的发明，而且也要依靠来自其他地方的技术传播。这个因素往往使技术在没有可能影响其传播的地理和生态障碍的大陆上发展得最快，而这种传播可能发生在这个大陆的内部，也可能发生在其他大陆。
最后，一个大陆上的每一个社会都体现了发展技术和采用技术的进一步机会，因为各个社会在创新精神方面由于许多不同的原因而存在着巨大的差异。因此，在所有其他条件相同的情况下，技术发展最快的是那些人口众多、有许多潜在的发明家和许多互相竞争的社会的广大而富有成果的地区。
现在，让我们来总结一下，粮食生产开始的时间、技术传播的障碍和人口的多寡这3大因素的变化，是怎样直接导致我们所看到的各大陆之间在技术发展方而的差异的。欧亚大陆（实际上也包括北非在内）是世界上最大的陆块，包含有数量最多的互相竞争的社会。它也是拥有粮食生产开始最早的两个中心的陆块，这两个中心就是新月沃地和中国。它的东西向的主轴线，使欧亚大陆一个地区采用的许多发明较快地传播到欧亚大陆具有相同纬度和气候的其他地区的社会。它的沿次轴线（南北轴线）的宽度，同美洲巴拿马地块的狭窄形成了对照。它没有把美洲和非洲的主轴线切断的那种严重的生态障碍。因此，对技术传播的地理和生态障碍，在欧亚大陆没有在其他大陆那样严重。由于所有这些因素，后更新世技术的加速发展，在欧亚大陆开始得最早，从而导致了本地最大的技术积累。
北美洲和南美洲在传统上被看作是两个不同的大陆，但它们连接在一起已有几百万年之久，它们提出了同样的历史问题，因此可以把它们故在一起来考虑，以便和欧亚大陆相比较。美洲构成了世界上第二大的陆块，但比欧亚大陆小得多。不过，它们在地理和生态上却支离破碎：巴拿马地块宽不过40英里，等于在地理上把美洲腰斩了，就像这个地峡上的达里安雨林和墨西哥北部的沙漠在生态上所做的那样。墨西哥北部的沙漠把中美洲人类的先进社会向北美洲的社会分隔开了，而巴拿马地峡则把中美洲的先进社会同安第斯山脉地区和亚马孙河地区的社会分隔开了。此外，美洲的主轴线是南北走向，从而使大部分的技术传播不得不逆纬度（和气候）的梯度而行，而不是在同一纬度内发生。例如，轮子是在中美洲发明的，而美洲驼是不迟于公元前3000年在安第斯山脉中部驯化的，但过了5000年，美洲的这唯一的役畜和唯一的轮子仍然没有碰头，虽然中美洲马雅社会同印加帝国北部边界之间的距离（1200英里）比同样有轮子和马匹的法国同中国之间6000英里的距离要短得多。在我看来，这些因家足以说明美洲在技术上落后于欧亚大陆这个事实。
非洲撒哈拉沙漠以南地区是世界上第三大的陆块，但比美洲小得多。在人类的大部分历史中，到欧亚大陆比到美洲容易多了，但撒哈拉沙漠却仍然是一个主要的生态障碍，把非洲撒哈拉沙漠以南地区同欧亚大陆和北非隔开。非洲的南北轴线造成了欧亚大陆与非洲撤哈拉沙漠以南地区之间以及撒哈拉沙漠以南地区本身内部技术传播的又一障碍。作为后一障碍的例子，陶器和炼铁术出现在或到达非洲撒哈拉沙漠以南的萨赫勒地带（赤道以北），至少同它们到达西欧一样早。然而，陶器直到公元元年才到达非洲的南端，而冶金术在从欧洲由海路到达非洲南端时，还不曾由陆路传播到那里。
最后，澳大利亚是最小的一个大陆。澳大利亚大部分地区雨量稀少，物产贫乏，因此，就其所能养活的人口来说，它实际上就显然甚至更小。它也是一个最孤立的大陆。加之，粮食生产也从来没有在澳大利亚本地出现过。这些因素加在一起，就便澳大利亚成为唯一的在现代仍然没有金属制品的大陆。
表13.1通过对各大陆的面积和现代人口的比较，把上述因素变成数字。l万年前在粮食生产出现前夕的各大陆人口的多少，我们无法知道，但想必就是表中的这个排列顺序，因为今天生产最多粮食的许多地区，对1万年前的狩猎采集族群来说，可能也是物产丰富的地区。人口的差异是引人注目的：欧亚大陆（包括北非在内）的人口差不多是美洲人口的6倍，差不多是非洲人口的8倍，澳大利亚人口的230倍。人口多意味着搞发明的人和互相竞争的社会也多。表13.1本身大大有助于说明欧亚大陆的枪炮和钢铁的由来。
各大陆之间在面积、人口、技术传播的难易程度和粮食生产的开始时间等方面存在着差异，而这些差异又对技术的出现产生了种种影响，但所合这些影响都被夸大了，因为技术可以催化自身。欧亚大陆在开始时的巨大优势因此就变成了自起的巨大的领先优势——其原因是欧亚大陆独特的地理条件，而不是那里的人特别聪明。我所认识的那些新几内亚人中就有潜在的爱迪生。不过，他们把自己的聪明才智用于解决适合自己情况的技术问题：不靠任何进口物品而在新几内亚丛林中生存的问题，而不是发明留声机的问题。
Notes:
One side of the double-sided phaistos disc
Notes: