The Sun is also a low density energy source. Curiously the fusion energy density in the sun's interior is similar to an animal metabolism.
I like the energy density of uranium & thorium 2M x that of fossil fuels which are already highly concentrated solar energy. That wonderful incredibly dense energy source, far, far exceeds all the fossil energy on the Earth. A gift from Mother Nature, forged in the incredibly violent collisions of neutron stars that release more energy in a fraction of a second than the Sun does in its entire lifetime. One of these Kilonovae can create a planet Earth mass of gold, similarly for other heavy elements.
[Continuing here after checking your link to Intro to 5 Keys of Progress]
Your 5 factors required for Progress:
1) A highly efficient food production and distribution system.
2) Trade-based cities packed with a large number of free citizens possessing a wide variety of skills.
3) Decentralized political, economic, religious and ideological power. It is of particular importance that elites are forced into transparent, non-violent competition that undermines their ability to forcibly extract wealth from the masses. This also allows citizens to freely choose among institutions based upon how much they have to offer to each individual and society in general.
4) At least one high-value-added industry that exports to the rest of the world.
5) Widespread use of fossil fuels.
If I understand your 7a or 7b situation correctly, then factor 1 applies to both; while factors 2 and 3 apply to 7b but maybe not 7a?
And factors 4 and 5 may not yet apply. On factor 3 on centralized power, I suppose it falls into a level of degree or an "it depends" situation? Innovation is a necessary but not quite sufficient condition for your view on Human Progress? Sometimes we forget to include institutional innovations in the category of innovation, since we tend to focus more on technological advances than changes in human nature. Glad you include that aspect.
On factor 5, I believe Michael Shellenberger has a slide showing a "progression" from increasing material intensity to increasing energy density as contributing to the betterment of mankind. I gather that means primitive wood, bone, stone tools to more complex artifacts like reed baskets, bows/arrows, early ceramics, sun dried or fired bricks, etc. But all obtained with limited energy sources up to wood.
Then he shows the progression of energy density (maybe as solar, wind, dung, wood, coal, oil, gas, nuclear?).
7a: food surpluses to babies to more innovation -- I could see an argument claiming the need to focus on feeding extra people reduces the opportunity for "extra time or people" to innovate. Aka the Malthusian trap?
7b: food surpluses extracted by central authorities that give them the extra wealth so they can support literacy and other nonagricultural activities, leading in turn to (nonagricultural) innovations.
Lorenzo of Oz has (and is) exploring the idea that a certain level of domestic or "institutional" order and control provided by government and central authority ends up being a benefit for society, at least when it is restrained enough to avoid absolute tyranny. I am aiming to learn more, but I think he has a point (within his admission that a balancing act is required).
[Posting as a draft, pending revision once I double check your list of 5 factors. Perhaps I don't understand the 7b situation properly.]
The Sun is also a low density energy source. Curiously the fusion energy density in the sun's interior is similar to an animal metabolism.
I like the energy density of uranium & thorium 2M x that of fossil fuels which are already highly concentrated solar energy. That wonderful incredibly dense energy source, far, far exceeds all the fossil energy on the Earth. A gift from Mother Nature, forged in the incredibly violent collisions of neutron stars that release more energy in a fraction of a second than the Sun does in its entire lifetime. One of these Kilonovae can create a planet Earth mass of gold, similarly for other heavy elements.
[Continuing here after checking your link to Intro to 5 Keys of Progress]
Your 5 factors required for Progress:
1) A highly efficient food production and distribution system.
2) Trade-based cities packed with a large number of free citizens possessing a wide variety of skills.
3) Decentralized political, economic, religious and ideological power. It is of particular importance that elites are forced into transparent, non-violent competition that undermines their ability to forcibly extract wealth from the masses. This also allows citizens to freely choose among institutions based upon how much they have to offer to each individual and society in general.
4) At least one high-value-added industry that exports to the rest of the world.
5) Widespread use of fossil fuels.
If I understand your 7a or 7b situation correctly, then factor 1 applies to both; while factors 2 and 3 apply to 7b but maybe not 7a?
And factors 4 and 5 may not yet apply. On factor 3 on centralized power, I suppose it falls into a level of degree or an "it depends" situation? Innovation is a necessary but not quite sufficient condition for your view on Human Progress? Sometimes we forget to include institutional innovations in the category of innovation, since we tend to focus more on technological advances than changes in human nature. Glad you include that aspect.
On factor 5, I believe Michael Shellenberger has a slide showing a "progression" from increasing material intensity to increasing energy density as contributing to the betterment of mankind. I gather that means primitive wood, bone, stone tools to more complex artifacts like reed baskets, bows/arrows, early ceramics, sun dried or fired bricks, etc. But all obtained with limited energy sources up to wood.
Then he shows the progression of energy density (maybe as solar, wind, dung, wood, coal, oil, gas, nuclear?).
I have some reservations about your 7a and 7b.
7a: food surpluses to babies to more innovation -- I could see an argument claiming the need to focus on feeding extra people reduces the opportunity for "extra time or people" to innovate. Aka the Malthusian trap?
7b: food surpluses extracted by central authorities that give them the extra wealth so they can support literacy and other nonagricultural activities, leading in turn to (nonagricultural) innovations.
Lorenzo of Oz has (and is) exploring the idea that a certain level of domestic or "institutional" order and control provided by government and central authority ends up being a benefit for society, at least when it is restrained enough to avoid absolute tyranny. I am aiming to learn more, but I think he has a point (within his admission that a balancing act is required).
[Posting as a draft, pending revision once I double check your list of 5 factors. Perhaps I don't understand the 7b situation properly.]