Technological Advancement

[Mindfire]

I hope I didn't miss your point, but I could have.

The initial question was "how do we explain these societies caught in technological stasis for centuries or longer"? My belief is that you need a darned good reason for it.

I still think that technological advance when the resources are available are a standard part of the human condition. I just used three examples that came easily to mind, but one of course can mix and match and tailor to taste. Your group of people who avoid writing things down (for whatever reason) might still want more crops so their children don't starve. The people who are not agriculturalists will still want better knowledge of how the seasons change to better predict where to obtain certain foods, or better tools for hunting or gathering. Pyrokinetics still need a fuel to burn so they might quite like fossil fuels that are lighter and more efficient and burn longer so they don't have to re-start their fire places every ten minutes. They also might want devices to better focus the heat, or to distribute it more evenly, or to make sure the smoke from the fire doesn't leave soot around the inside of their dwellings.

Technology is also a great force multiplier and result enhancer even when you really don't need a "thing" to achieve what you want. A human can get himself some basic stones and crush grains by hand, or he can throw a rock, no serious technology required. But despite that they tend to build water driven mills to do more of the same in a better way. Or he might sharpen that stone he throws or invent spears and bows. A man can see with his own eyes but a telescope or a microscope still allow him to see and learn much more, and that is without even talking about x-rays etc.

And the question of how one justifies a lack of advancement in technology in societies over centuries is not a eurocentric one. Virtually all societies develop technology at different paces and for different purposes. The Aztecs and Egyptians and Zimbabweans built some amazing structures without a wit of help from western europe through their own technological advances.

If a group of people has things they desire, or goals, they will seek ways to get those things more effectively and to achieve those goals. One of the ways of doing that is technology. I think if a society is stagnant in technology in a tale, no matter where set, or with what goals and abilities, you need a pretty strong story rationale for things being in technological stasis. No European bias involved at all. The same analysis to my mind would apply to any group of people no matter where they are in the world, or what special abilities they might have.

On further consideration, we might be talking past each other. The point I was trying to make is that a society can appear to be stagnant and yet not actually be stagnant. Because typically the layman's metric for whether or not a culture is stagnant is "are they becoming more like the modern Western world?" Just because a society doesn't have X technology that we deem important doesn't mean they're stuck, just that they developed in a different direction. And then there's the semantic argument where the word "technology" can be as broad or as narrow as you want it to be, so a society could have technology without having technology...

 

[Russ]

On further consideration, we might be talking past each other. The point I was trying to make is that a society can appear to be stagnant and yet not actually be stagnant. Because typically the layman's metric for whether or not a culture is stagnant is "are they becoming more like the modern Western world?" Just because a society doesn't have X technology that we deem important doesn't mean they're stuck, just that they developed in a different direction. And then there's the semantic argument where the word "technology" can be as broad or as narrow as you want it to be, so a society could have technology without having technology...

I think you are bang on.

If you point is "it is unwise to assume that the only kind of technological advancement that is worth considering is that which follows the western model" I agree completely.

 

[Mythopoet]

I don't know of any stories where all change has stopped...

I can't think of any either. But I might be reading the wrong (or right?) books.

Mostly, change just happens differently, or is kept in check by a powerful force, or something like that, there's always some kind of extenuating circumstance that doesn't exist in our world to explain the status quo. Like a Dark Lord that keeps his subjects from obtaining the resources they would need to innovate or major disasters that destroy the infrastructure needed to support innovations. Or constant warfare reducing the population and thus statistically killing off a lot of the people who would have made the innovations.

I really can't think of any fantasy worlds where there's stagnation for no good reason. Well, I suppose Narnia comes close, but that can possibly be attributed to the fact that humans are only a fraction of the Narnian population. The animals don't have the same drive to discover and change and innovate. Gormenghast, of course, is grotesquely stagnant, but that's the point.

Can someone give some examples of fantasy worlds/stories that they see exhibiting "medieval stasis"?

 

[X Equestris]

Can someone give some examples of fantasy worlds/stories that they see exhibiting "medieval stasis"?

TV Tropes has some good examples. Some are more justified than others.

Medieval Stasis - TV Tropes

 

[FifthView]

TV Tropes has some good examples. Some are more justified than others.

Medieval Stasis - TV Tropes

I like this point made in that article: "Finally, 'stasis' does not necessarily mean 'stagnant'. It's quite possible for a world to continually experience intellectual, political, demographic, or other changes even if some other element of the world remains the same for centuries."

I had just been considering the differences between stasis, stable, and stagnant when I clicked on your link.

 

[psychotick]

Hi X,

Even assuming you're right - and I would disagree with your assessment - what you've demonstrated is that three cultures in Earth's history have advance beyond the medieval. Three out of hundreds. And still only one to the industrial revolution stage. That strongly suggests that the norm is not to advance beyond a certain point save very slowly and after a very long time.

So why do you have to explain that your fantasy culture didn't do that after thousands of years?

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Mindfire]

Hi X,

Even assuming you're right - and I would disagree with your assessment - what you've demonstrated is that three cultures in Earth's history have advance beyond the medieval. Three out of hundreds. And still only one to the industrial revolution stage. That strongly suggests that the norm is not to advance beyond a certain point save very slowly and after a very long time.

So why do you have to explain that your fantasy culture didn't do that after thousands of years?

Cheers, Greg.

Okay, I can't just let this go. Cultural evolution doesn't have "stages". There is no "industrial revolution stage" that serves as a technological progress benchmark. That would imply some kind of end goal. (Presumably to be like the Western world?) Societies change in response to internal and external forces that are different for each. For some this leads to an industrial revolution, while others do not industrialize at all. But these differences are not mile markers on some kind of social evolution map.

 

[X Equestris]

Hi X,

Even assuming you're right - and I would disagree with your assessment - what you've demonstrated is that three cultures in Earth's history have advance beyond the medieval. Three out of hundreds. And still only one to the industrial revolution stage. That strongly suggests that the norm is not to advance beyond a certain point save very slowly and after a very long time.

So why do you have to explain that your fantasy culture didn't do that after thousands of years?

Cheers, Greg.

You realize I gave you regions with tech progress past medieval, not cultures, yes? That there are multiple cultures in those regions?

The ancient Greeks had some degree of knowledge about steam and electricity. They never had an industrial revolution because of a number of other factors. Those other factors weren't right until the 19th century. I find it presumptive that no other civilization could have had an industrial revolution on their own if the conditions were right. It might have taken longer, but I sincerely doubt it would have taken many thousands of years, as we are discussing here. And there still would have been smaller technological, political, cultural, religious, etc. changes in that time.

 

[Russ]

Hi X,

Even assuming you're right - and I would disagree with your assessment - what you've demonstrated is that three cultures in Earth's history have advance beyond the medieval. Three out of hundreds. And still only one to the industrial revolution stage. That strongly suggests that the norm is not to advance beyond a certain point save very slowly and after a very long time.

So why do you have to explain that your fantasy culture didn't do that after thousands of years?

Cheers, Greg.

Even if we accept your premise on hierarchical sequential stages (which is interesting but debatable) I think your logic is wrong on the timing issue.

The problem is that by the time the industrial revolution hit in Europe, europe was already a very widespread colonial power. So the spread of the industrial revolution ideas happened very quickly, where the colonial powers wanted it. Each culture was no longer developing independently but was influenced by the other cultures it was in contact with- for good or ill.

Now if all of these cultures had similar resources, and they were all totally independent, then you could see how long each one took to reach a certain step on your hierarchy and draw some conclusions. But they didn't, they were all influencing each other by then.

The simplest analogy is to think about two primitive humans. The first chap develops a club and then whacks his neighbour on the head with it killing or subjugating the second chap. Now the second guy might have independently developed the club five minutes later, but he never got the chance.

And technology is not a single marker. For a time the arab peoples were far more advanced in math and astronomy than the europeans, but then the europeans borrowed a great deal of that stuff and caught up in those areas. But at the same time european cultures were more successful in other areas and that spread in the other direction. There has always been a great deal of cross pollination.

If you want to talk industrial revolution you really have to narrow it down to even countries with europe who all had different cultures. The British really got at it, while other countries did not. You would be surprised just how agrarian even Germany was until just before WWII.

It gets really complicated when you try to account for the impact of individual genius on a culture.

 

[Mythopoet]

TV Tropes has some good examples. Some are more justified than others.

Medieval Stasis - TV Tropes

Hmmm... I think my problem with this concept of "Medieval Stasis" is that it does seem to be primarily based on a Western and technological standard of advancement. A significant number of those examples (most of the ones I am familiar with) have worlds where there definitely is growth and change over time, and any kind of lack in advancement is only as compared to Western technological change within the past two centuries.

I mean, let's talk about Egypt for a second. Ancient Egypt had about 4000 years of history where there was very little technological advancement, by modern standards. And yet, the Egyptians innovated a fair amount of technology and developed many areas of knowledge for which they were admired by even the Greeks. Some of their technology we marvel at even today, such as their skill at architecture.

Let's face it, rapid technological advancement is a very recent phenomenon, and only because all of the right factors have fallen into place. Such as long periods of little to no warfare allowing more people to focus on research and innovation, increased availability of resources from around the world, an unparalleled accumulation of knowledge from throughout history and around the world, increased communication and sharing of ideas between researchers and engineers, etc. Basically, we reached the technological innovation event horizon. But just because no one reached it beforehand doesn't mean there was something wrong with them.

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

Hmmm... I think my problem with this concept of "Medieval Stasis" is that it does seem to be primarily based on a Western and technological standard of advancement. A significant number of those examples (most of the ones I am familiar with) have worlds where there definitely is growth and change over time, and any kind of lack in advancement is only as compared to Western technological change within the past two centuries.

I mean, let's talk about Egypt for a second. Ancient Egypt had about 4000 years of history where there was very little technological advancement, by modern standards. And yet, the Egyptians innovated a fair amount of technology and developed many areas of knowledge for which they were admired by even the Greeks. Some of their technology we marvel at even today, such as their skill at architecture.

Let's face it, rapid technological advancement is a very recent phenomenon, and only because all of the right factors have fallen into place. Such as long periods of little to no warfare allowing more people to focus on research and innovation, increased availability of resources from around the world, an unparalleled accumulation of knowledge from throughout history and around the world, increased communication and sharing of ideas between researchers and engineers, etc. Basically, we reached the technological innovation event horizon. But just because no one reached it beforehand doesn't mean there was something wrong with them.

I know this is side bar but I think it's because technology tends to grow exponentially, which I think is something interesting to try working with with magi-tech.

 

[evolution_rex]

I don't personally mind lack of technological advancements. I think a big part of the charm in these middle ages-themed fantasies is that stagnant world. Like the world was created in that era and just stuck with it. It's not particularly realistic but works in a lot of stories for me.

However, I personally don't enjoy writing my worlds that way. I like to make it to where there was a time before civilization and that it took time for the world to get where it was in which the story takes place. I don't typically skip around hundreds of years in the future so I don't usually worry about it.

But I believe it can take a long time before civilization builds up, because your world might not have had the pressure to need certain things. For example, I think slavery is something that would just need to be in your world to some extent if you have large civilizations. It was the end of slavery that brought on the industrial revolution. So I think the writer needs to take some time to think about what sort of flaws those ages had that prevented them from advancing. It is why I don't like magic being a common occurrence. If any person can learn magic then magic would be an alternative to science in terms of advancing. Someone would get the idea to use their power to make teleportation portals around the world so that everyone can communicate better, someone would make some magic robots to replace slaves, someone could literally make a computer out of magic, etc. These two things just don't go together.

 

[chrispenycate]

My dragonverse has the dragons actively cooperating with humans because technology has advanced so far dragons are obviously doomed, should they not change (steam trains, crossbows with exploding quarrels, dynamiting their lairs. But they learn to become engine drivers, and aerial combat specialists.

Since the humans only landed on their continent some five thousand years ago, in a dreadful state (never explained) it's taken them till now to get this far.

 

[psychotick]

Hi Mindfire,

Not talking about cultural advancement specifically. I'm talking about technological advancement, and that does happen in stages. Peoples may advance in different ways and steps in different places, but ultimately you aren't going to get cars and computers if all those steps aren't completed.

And Russ, I agree. But you're leaving out things too. Technological advancements secifically. Just to sail across the oceans reliably you need tech. Not just to build the boats but guide them. So ignore the carpentry and rope making. Think instead about compasses and sextents. How far is your fleet going to get without them? How big a ship can you build without some understanding of structural engineering? What about guns? You want your country's power to spread into new lands? A bunch of soldiers with spears aren't going to do it. You need weapons. What about stirrups for horses? Cannon?

The simple fact is that technology builds on itself. Each new invention makes life a little easier and leads to the next. And the OP is asking why you have to explain that that hasn't happened. The answer is simply that those inventions haven't happened.

It took thousands of years for certain cultures to reach the technological level of medieval societies, and then only a very few went on. Essentially one. And likely the reason it did was because the culture at that stage had reached a sufficient stage where it had enough people, enough food and enough wealth and the right economic / political structure / value system that a social elite could form - one that encouraged education at least for a privileged few, who in turn had the opportunity to turn their thoughts to new avenues of study. They achieved a critical mass of knowledge and theory with each new idea sparking another.

And X, you've just mentioned one of the most advanced ancient civilizations that despite everything could not advance technologically, and the reason the Greeks could not advance was simple. They lived in city states that were often warring with one another. They valued the arts, but only a very few could become artists and philosophers, while a great many more were scrounging to find enough food, dying young and working all hours of the day to live. They simply didn't have the free time available to sit down and start inventing. They needed a vastly different political structure (and of course no Rome) to advance. They needed to form a critical mass for inventing stuff. They didn't get there. They did however achieve critical mass in certain areas like philosophy, and so thousands of years later we have the writings of Plato, Socrates etc. Imagine where we'd be now if they'd managed to keep going.

The point is that there are any number of factors that need to be in place before a culture can technologically advance beyond a certain point, and the vast majority of cultures simply never have all those factors available to them. So instead they advance in what they can.

Take for example the Maori of my homeland. Political structure was tribal and they warred. That was a problem. They had no metal available. That was against them. And probably their biggest deficit was their small population size and lack of concentration in built up areas. It didn't allow them to have a critical mass of bright people to get together and start sparking ideas and having education more freely available. They also never had reading and writing which means that knowledge could only be passed down orally. So what did the Maori advance in? Things that they could of course. Things which served their purposes which were essentially getting enough food to eat and trying to stay warm. You want an advanced bone fish hook, a flax woven net or polished greenstone adze, they're your people. You want a nuclear reactor, go somewhere else. They were never going to invent it. The vast majority of peoples in the world were never going to invent them.

So I come back to my point. Why do you have to explain that a world hasn't progressed beyond a certain point in thousands of years? The fact is that ninety plus percent of our world didn't.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Kobun]

So in many fantasy stories centuries and thousands of years can go by but still cultures are locked in a medieval theme. How have you handled this in your works? How can you justify this by still being believable?

This was always a pet peeve of mine. In short, I don't. What ever phase my civilization has been at, they've been there for one, two centuries at most. People spend too much time working out solutions and thinking up improvements for anything more to be realistic.

I think the reason you see this is specifically because writers think millenniums are special. They consider such a broad time frame to be suuuuuper impressive.

 

[X Equestris]

And X, you've just mentioned one of the most advanced ancient civilizations that despite everything could not advance technologically, and the reason the Greeks could not advance was simple. They lived in city states that were often warring with one another. They valued the arts, but only a very few could become artists and philosophers, while a great many more were scrounging to find enough food, dying young and working all hours of the day to live. They simply didn't have the free time available to sit down and start inventing. They needed a vastly different political structure (and of course no Rome) to advance. They needed to form a critical mass for inventing stuff. They didn't get there. They did however achieve critical mass in certain areas like philosophy, and so thousands of years later we have the writings of Plato, Socrates etc. Imagine where we'd be now if they'd managed to keep going.

The point is that there are any number of factors that need to be in place before a culture can technologically advance beyond a certain point, and the vast majority of cultures simply never have all those factors available to them. So instead they advance in what they can.

Take for example the Maori of my homeland. Political structure was tribal and they warred. That was a problem. They had no metal available. That was against them. And probably their biggest deficit was their small population size and lack of concentration in built up areas. It didn't allow them to have a critical mass of bright people to get together and start sparking ideas and having education more freely available. They also never had reading and writing which means that knowledge could only be passed down orally. So what did the Maori advance in? Things that they could of course. Things which served their purposes which were essentially getting enough food to eat and trying to stay warm. You want an advanced bone fish hook, a flax woven net or polished greenstone adze, they're your people. You want a nuclear reactor, go somewhere else. They were never going to invent it. The vast majority of peoples in the world were never going to invent them.

So I come back to my point. Why do you have to explain that a world hasn't progressed beyond a certain point in thousands of years? The fact is that ninety plus percent of our world didn't.

Cheers, Greg.

I...what? Did you just imply the Greeks didn't advance technologically? Because that is blatantly false. They didn't achieve an industrial revolution, which is apparently your bar for advancement that matters. And it's not because they didn't have enough free time. All settled societies have a lower class that does the hard work. That has no impact on the thinkers. Also, the political divisions aren't a huge deal. Warfare has been one of the driving forces behind innovation since the beginning. Even if the political divisions were a hindrance, what do you say about the Alexandrian successor states? Not to mention how Rome continued to foster innovation amongst its Greek subjects. People have to be willing to invest money in tools and machinery instead of buying more slaves and animals to do labor. Metallurgy wasn't at the right level during the Greek's time. Factors like those held the Greeks back, not a lack of free time.

They did, however, progress technologically in other areas that were less extreme than an industrial revolution. As did many other civilizations that went past medieval levels of technology. Your premises are based on a great deal of misconceptions. There aren't tiers. This isn't a game of Civilization. The Inca had a fairly powerful empire, but they never invented the wheel. The Aztecs, and most other Central American civilizations, never developed metal tools and weapons. This doesn't change the fact that they did advance their technology. Your example of the Maori proves my point, in that they may not have some technologies, but they aren't stagnant. In contrast, many of the fictional civilizations we're talking about here have been stuck in what's usually a copy of Medieval Europe for many thousands,or tens of thousands, of years.

Also, you don't need guns to go colonizing. Just look at the Greek and Phoenician colonies all around the Mediterranean and Black Seas. Indeed, they did quite well for a very long time despite having military technology that was on the same level as the people whose lands they were colonizing.

It's not about explaining why your created civilizations haven't progressed past a certain point, it's about whether they've been at the point they're at now for an unbelievable amount of time.

 

[FifthView]

It's not about explaining why your created civilizations haven't progressed past a certain point, it's about whether they've been at the point they're at now for an unbelievable amount of time.

Strikes me that we are overlooking something fairly important to the discussion.

Typically in a novel or series of novels

• most events will be occurring in the here-and-now (present)
• most characters, perhaps all, will not be historians, archeologists, etc.
• record-keeping may consist mostly of oral tradition; libraries may not be extensive.

So the here-and-now may be medieval. That does not mean the civilization was always medieval, from the beginning, nor that technologies used in the novel have been around for the full 1000-3000 years leading up to the here-and-now.

If characters are aware of the age of the empire and comment on its age, there's no reason to believe they also have a full understanding of the previous millennia. "Our great, glorious Terrbonia has endured for 3000 years!" may be somewhat correct if some sort of civilization using that name has been around for as long as that; but for all the characters know, many upheavals, changes, innovations, have occurred during that time.

Perhaps 2000 years ago, Terrbonia was just a scattering of tiny villages, or even multiple tribes loosely controlled by a "king" who dominated the environment — and not what it is now, with a more entrenched emperor with vast palaces, military forces, and ubiquitous bureaucracy with thousands of officials at all levels of society.

The "here" of "here-and-now" of the novel also means that a great portion of the present technological state of the civilization will probably go unaddressed in the novel. For instance, there may be absolutely no need to list and describe every farming implement, every mining tool, etc., presently in use in the empire. We as readers might gather that the civilization is at a certain state of development, now, by events and descriptions of things that occur in the lives of the characters, but we won't have a full knowledge of the history of the technology currently in use. That plow being used by the farmer we meet? Maybe that type of plow only came into use within the last 200 years. Heck, maybe that farmer is actually using a slightly modified plow that he himself has designed — perhaps the metal on it is an improved alloy that his brother the blacksmith created.

Quite aside from the more theoretical exploration of the idea of technological progress, novels typically have a more narrow focus, a type of myopia, in that events within the story only happen within a fairly limited space and period of time, and may utilize a set of characters who themselves operate under a similar myopia. Add to that the fact that a civilization that is presently in a medieval state probably doesn't have an extensive library system and history/archeology professions (or very limited historians and archeologists), and the shape of previous millennia will be largely unknown.

Edit: Incidentally, I'm reminded of those web videos showing children being presented with technology from 20-40 years ago. Many children can't comprehend a world in which microwave ovens, cell phones, fast internet speeds didn't exist. For them, the world has always been the way it currently is. The same may be true for adults when much of the knowledge about technology, e.g., craft tools, is passed down from father to son or in systems of apprenticeship, guilds, and so forth. In those cases, the old technology is preserved. It may seem to individuals that the world has always been the way it is, even if it hasn't. So when we are using those characters, we might be communicating to the reader that the current state of the world has been around for thousands of years exactly as it now is. That doesn't mean our worlds are stagnant, however.

 

[X Equestris]

Certainly. Having characters believe the world has always been one way is one thing. It's why we have art from Renaissance Italy depicting Bible scenes with people who look exactly like contemporary Italians, or paintings of the Fall of Jerusalem showing the Crusaders wearing plate armor. Having the world actually have been the same for tens of thousands of years is a different case entirely.

 

[TheokinsJ]

As others have said, technological advancement is not always guaranteed. Indeed, in Western Europe during 'The Dark Ages', technological advancement went backwards, quite drastically. All the technical advances the Romans and the Greeks had made in architecture, Engineering, agriculture etc, all went down the drain and most of Europe went back to a primitive form of existence, with no aqueducts with running water, no concrete, no bath-houses, no central heating (Yes, the Romans invented an early form of central heating!), no paved roads etc.

Technological advancement is not guaranteed, it depends on circumstance and the availability of certain resources, and the type of society. Nomadic and semi-nomadic societies are much less likely to advance; there's no reason to invent anything or to create anything if you're just going to move on and leave it behind. The Aboriginal people of Australia are a classic example; 40,000 years on the continent, and they never advanced technologically. They never built anything- there were no permanent settlements or buildings, there's rock art left behind by them in caves, but for the most part, they were living in the stone age for 40,000 years and never progressed.
The Maori people in New Zealand who've been there for roughly 800-1000 years didn't progress much either (Although they did make permanent settlements), and others have already talked about China, and how for nearly two thousand years it remained unchanged until Western civilisation influenced it.

 

[X Equestris]

As others have said, technological advancement is not always guaranteed. Indeed, in Western Europe during 'The Dark Ages', technological advancement went backwards, quite drastically. All the technical advances the Romans and the Greeks had made in architecture, Engineering, agriculture etc, all went down the drain and most of Europe went back to a primitive form of existence, with no aqueducts with running water, no concrete, no bath-houses, no central heating (Yes, the Romans invented an early form of central heating!), no paved roads etc.

Technological advancement is not guaranteed, it depends on circumstance and the availability of certain resources, and the type of society. Nomadic and semi-nomadic societies are much less likely to advance; there's no reason to invent anything or to create anything if you're just going to move on and leave it behind. The Aboriginal people of Australia are a classic example; 40,000 years on the continent, and they never advanced technologically. They never built anything- there were no permanent settlements or buildings, there's rock art left behind by them in caves, but for the most part, they were living in the stone age for 40,000 years and never progressed.
The Maori people in New Zealand who've been there for roughly 800-1000 years didn't progress much either (Although they did make permanent settlements), and others have already talked about China, and how for nearly two thousand years it remained unchanged until Western civilisation influenced it.

Yet how many societies in fantasy fiction are based on those? Very few. Most resemble the conditions of medieval Europe.

Also, most of these groups people are mentioning that didn't progress their technology never made it past the Stone Age, and they live in rather harsh or limiting environments. Amongst groups that progressed past that, advancements build on one another at an increasingly rapid pace. The gaps between those advancements shrink.

Another thing to think about here is why. Why does the story have to be spread out over thousands of years, yet keep the same technology? For example, if your story requires the location of an object to be lost over time, does it really have to be thousands/ tens of thousands of years in the past? Might a smaller time frame work just as well? If not, is it really necessary to keep your civilizations at the same level of advancement the entire time?