History of Science

I see people are failing to follow my argument. As I've pointed out several times in this thread, there are TWO, count them, TWO conditions under which we have rapid technological and scientific progress. The first one, and only the first one, let me repeat is 1. Total War. There is a second condition under which we have rapid scientific and technological progress. This one does not involve war. This one occurs during peacetime. This second condition under which we have rapid scientific and technological progress involves 2. Vast Surpluses of Resources. When we have vast surpluses of resources, free-wheeling Capitalism functions optimally. It is in the interests of businessmen to develop effective new technologies as rapidly as possible, because the better their technologies, the more money they can make. After all, there are unlimited resources for the taking. True, others may eventually steal their new technologies, but, the business that developed it first gets first dibs on all those unlimited resources. They'll be able to earn back their investment and then some. In contrast to this second condition, we have situations in which the pie is limited, in which total wealth is a zero sum game. Under these conditions, investing huge resources to develop new technologies doesn't work out well, because there isn't much of a return, in general, and even if there is, everyone will be very quick to steal the new technology just to survive. So, Imperial Britain at its height had the enormous resources of the empire to justify and finance the development of the dreadnoughts. No need for a direct military/survival incentive. Same reason for the rapid technological developments in the U.S. in the late nineteenth century -- the immense wealth of the Wild West, all for the taking. Are we clear now? It's not just total war the brings about rapid technological/scientific development. Also vast, untapped resources from huge, undeveloped empires.