Greeks were cooking with gas (from the paper):
“However, we note that the degree of manufacturing precision is remarkable, with standard errors in hole positions of only 0.028mm radially, and 0.129mm azimuthally.
Budiselic et al. quote a standard deviation for their individual position measurements of 0.037 mm, so a good deal of the radial error may come from the measurements of the X-ray images themselves.”
As someone who spent a decade doing precision metrology with optical devices... there isn't a way to correctly measure that part with the precision they indicate in the measured values.
If you're in optical measurement and it should be around 200nm (rayleigh criterion, wavelength dependent), am I missing something? Obviously, that's just angular resolution, not measurement precision, so I'm guessing I'm missing some detail.
If I recall the precision is limited to by the wavelength of the light being used. If they are using X-Rays in the 0.01 nm to 10 nm range wouldn't that give them more precision then optical light in the 380 nm to 700 nm range?
It seems like the high ancient world was so close to industrializing. Just a few missing pieces, probably a more rigorous scientific method and mathematics. Maybe some economic inventions too like the stock corporation to enable venture investing.
I also wonder about the abolition of slavery. It was normal through pretty much all of human history up to the last 200 years or so. Why build machines at great scale when there is so much almost free human labor?
> It seems like the high ancient world was so close to industrializing.
Bret Devereaux proposed that Industrial Revolution was due to a highly improbable coincidence of circumstances.[1] It all started with a steam engine, and very inefficient one at first[2]. But it had found it place, and then James Watt made the better engine and it also found its uses. It gave time for material science and thermodynamics to catch up, and then steam engines became light enough to power ships and then locomotives.
Industrial Revolution, if we look closer took a lot of relatively small steps, and some of these steps made sense only because the stars lined up. Now people consciously "line up stars" to move progress forward, but then it was really a coincidence.
Yet another thing to put in the bag of Fermi paradox answers: would industrialization and high technology be likely without fossil fuels?
Of course we have solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, and nuclear, but all of those are hard to access at any kind of scale without at the very least modern metallurgy and advanced materials made possible by fossil fuel energy. Modern renewable energy isn't possible without things like silicon PV, advanced materials for huge wind turbines, and batteries that are the product of extremely advanced materials science and manufacturing technology.
Fossil fuels were basically the thermodynamic seed capital.
It technically could have been done more slowly with wood and other biomass as a fuel and feedstock, but it seems like it would have been less likely to occur.
Industry consumes enormous amounts of energy/power. Access to energy/power is a form of wealth. A civilization without access to large amounts of energy and power beyond the needs of a primitive agrarian or hunter-gatherer society cannot industrialize. To industrialize, industrial amounts of energy and power are required.
As well access to iron is required. And then eventually steel. All of this requires knowledge and writing and printing so that knowledge can be accumulated and propagated.
Late 18th century England and its colonies had access to all of these things. Coal, iron, printing presses, and universities. As well it had an political and economic structure that made risk-taking easy -- all the other prerequisites without risk-taking would still amount to the industrial revolution not happening.
>Why build machines at great scale when there is so much almost free human labor?
It's crazy that to some extent this is still true today. Automation could go a lot further with existing technologies and make many workers' lives easier or safer. But it is often cheaper to hire humans and burn through them instead of spending the money to implement new kinds of robotics. Especially when companies only think until the next quarter.
People who will depend on UBI won't innovate. People who innovate don't need UBI. Slavery was expensive (guards, low productivity). In USSR Soviets realised that in Gulags it's more effective to pay Zeks regular salary and treat them as contractors than keep them as slave work force.
UBI and better healthcare would allow me the freedom to innovate. Right now it’s a much more significant barrier to strike out on my own and build something. So it makes more sense to me to just have a 9-5 job, but if there was a bit more wiggle room I’d certainly try it.
Some people would just play Minecraft, but a few would innovate, and the economic value of those innovations would be far greater than the economic value lost to the Minecraft players who quit their McJobs.
Early science in the Renaissance and later, until the 20th century, was almost entirely driven by people who could afford to pursue their efforts while sustained by income that required little or zero direct effort.
Give humanity a chance. It might just surprise you.
They were extraordinary minds and very rare. For 40 years I live among people who receive some amounts of unconditional money. All they invented is how to drink bottle of vodka at once (I can't do that, impressive). Most of humans are lazy, greedy and envy, that's why we need to raise children and show them what is "proper". I do believe in some people. Loans or stipends are better - they create mutual contract, you feel you need to give something in return.
Earlier in life I created something that has generated a minimal stipend every month. That small security has enabled me to take risks, produce art, create technical processes, construct the water, power, data, and physical infrastructure for a private sustainable community, take a couple of years off to educate my children in technology, and, in short, prosper. It is life changing to know that the worst that can happen if you fail is that you will be mildly uncomfortable for a period of your choosing.
OTOH I see a lot of wasted potential, talented people working banal 9 to 5 jobs because they can’t risk failure, forgoing learning opportunities because they can’t take the time, and in general stuck in employment traps that prevent them from ever refining their natural talents.
Sure, some people will do nothing with their lives despite the opportunities presented to them… but many, many people would do much, much more if they weren’t trapped in a system designed to harvest, under duress of homelessness, the vast majority of their useful time in exchange for the lowest possible compensation.
why do you say folks who depend on UBI won’t innovate? Logically speaking it almost seems more probable they would since they wouldn’t need to devote time and energy to a job.
After many years of working on the the problem of biological automation, I came to conclude that it's really hard to beat an extremely skilled/smart lab tech for general purpose experiments. And my company thinks on the decade+ timescale.
True. But what percentage of the workforce is extremely skilled and smart lab techs? And who knows, if we automate mundane normal jobs, we might get more people who find the time to pursue such high level skills instead of being worried about paying for food.
>Why build machines at great scale when there is so much almost free human labor?
Slaves weren't free. At least in the early United States, slaves were considered a significant investment; only rich plantation (land) owners could afford them. If they were cheap, then everyone would have had one. Here's an interesting article about the topic:
A typical slave in the US in the early 1800s cost several hundred dollars, which in today's dollars is between $60k and $184k. Obviously, this isn't something typical people can afford.
I'm not sure if slaves were this expensive back in ancient Greek or Roman times, but I suspect it probably wasn't that different.
Industrialization would have completely changed the economics of these places.
>I'm not sure if slaves were this expensive back in ancient Greek or Roman times, but I suspect it probably wasn't that different.
The price fluctuated heavily. After a successful conquest slaves were way more affordable. Generally, a lot of people were able to afford slaves, so it was cheaper on average too. It was also place-dependent, compare for example Athens where roughly half of the population was free, and Sparta, where most of the population was enslaved.
And of course even when slaves were expensive, most economically important labor was done by them anyway.
If the slaves in Sparta far outnumbered the native population of Spartans, what exactly kept them from revolting and taking over? Was it just because the Spartans were all trained as warriors?
My point though was about the early days. There were no machines like that available, just slaves and animals. As long as there were slaves was there an incentive to develop this level of mechanization?
> It seems like the high ancient world was so close to industrializing.
There are many factors at play. Serious industrialization requires several components to build on. There is a reason for example that "All roads lead to Rome". That's because no roads lead to Athens.
The machines to do the work, were the animals. Horses to carry merchandise around, bulls to plow land were used all over the place, by Romans, Greeks, Sumerians, Persians, everyone.
Metal constructions used for heavy work like iron, were too brittle, and bronze was too weak to withstand significant forces. It is only the last two hundred years that strong alloys were developed for industrial applications.
These statements are 100% pseudo-scientific woo. If you look at the mechanism, you can't measure anything on it even with 1mm precision, let alone 0.037mm.
