The agriculture revolution(s) increased the amount of available energy in the form of calories but did not lead to sustained progress.,
This is because, as he and others point out, that surplus was captured by political and religious elites. It took institutional change for the fruits of progress to be inclusively shared, and as the cities grew, the cauldrons of innovation take hold.
Our ability to harness fossil fuels, essentially stored and compressed solar energy, kicked off the industrial revolution.
> The agriculture revolution(s) increased the amount of available energy in the form of calories but did not lead to sustained progress.,
I would argue it lead to some initial progress, e.g., the emergence of writing, early urbanization, Greek mathematics and proto-science, some maritime trade networks (the Indian/West Pacific one and the Mediterranean/Northeast Atlantic one). However, I agree it quickly slowed. I fear the same may be happening to the period of industrial progress.
Remember that my definition of progress focuses on the material standard of living of the masses. Technological innovation, trade, and science are something separate. They may lead to an increased standard of living, or it may not. That is an empirical question. It should not be assumed.
In the cases you mentioned, I seriously doubt they increased standard of living, except for trade in the Mediterranean/Northeast Atlantic.
The agriculture revolution(s) increased the amount of available energy in the form of calories but did not lead to sustained progress.,
This is because, as he and others point out, that surplus was captured by political and religious elites. It took institutional change for the fruits of progress to be inclusively shared, and as the cities grew, the cauldrons of innovation take hold.
Our ability to harness fossil fuels, essentially stored and compressed solar energy, kicked off the industrial revolution.
> The agriculture revolution(s) increased the amount of available energy in the form of calories but did not lead to sustained progress.,
I would argue it lead to some initial progress, e.g., the emergence of writing, early urbanization, Greek mathematics and proto-science, some maritime trade networks (the Indian/West Pacific one and the Mediterranean/Northeast Atlantic one). However, I agree it quickly slowed. I fear the same may be happening to the period of industrial progress.
Remember that my definition of progress focuses on the material standard of living of the masses. Technological innovation, trade, and science are something separate. They may lead to an increased standard of living, or it may not. That is an empirical question. It should not be assumed.
In the cases you mentioned, I seriously doubt they increased standard of living, except for trade in the Mediterranean/Northeast Atlantic.
I agree with you 100 percent.