How to slow technological progress in a setting

[Gurkhal]

I've been brainstorming a little about the setting for my writing in a 19th century setting. One thing in it I need is to essentially slow progress, most importantly in regard to technology, by about ten times. Thus the technological progress that took about 133 years in our world and took place between 1789 and1922 must take, at a minimum, ten times as much time. In my timeline I need to extend this 133 years into around 1300 years or more.

Now I come here primarily to check if my ideas makes sense to others or if there are better ways to have the desired effect within the setting. I would really want to have some kind of at least half-baked reason in the story and not just handwave it or make a cause so shallow and bad that I myself can't accept it.

Anyway what I'm thinking about are two reasons for the very slow technological progress in a setting which pretty advanced technology and means of communication when compared to the traditional medieval-esque fantasy world.

The first reason would be that technology is seen with suspicion and those who devot themselves to it are treated as immorale and suspect. This is due to an early time when technology was embraced to the point that sentinent AI was created which resulted in a terrible war between biological and machine life. The biological life won but the experienced left a technophobe mark in the collective and historical memory of the survivors. Not to mention that to ensure that sentinent AI was truly defeated pretty much all of the advanced technology of that time was destroyed, essentially throwing the survivors back into more primal lifestyles. Naturally technological progress has started again since then but always with suspicion and various degrees of hostility towards it and those making it. Violence, including lethal such, has not been unknown against people engaged in technological projects.

The second reason is that for mutual protection and profit the technological know-how has been, mostly, gathered into organizations known as the High Guilds that are a mix of clan, guild, coperation and cult who keep an iron grip on technology and their own members. The High Guilds are very insular and only really accept occasional outsiders to join them to inject new blood and prevent inbreeding. Generally the High Guilds stamp out sources of technology beyond their own ranks with ruthless brutality, takes a pound of flesh for their services and also want to keep the technology accessable beyond their ranks at a low level. This is both to ensure that when things occasionally turn ugly the technology the High Guilds have themselves for their defence will not be matched by outside enemies and also because they prioritize their profits above any drive for progress, curiosity and innovation. And yes, the different High Guilds form a cartel which couldn't care less about free market, fair competition or whatever else economists would like to tell them.

So would these two reasons make sense as reasons why technological progress has seriously slowed down?

 

[CupofJoe]

Add in a religion that has strict doctrine about how things should happen and you can make work. But that is just me.
I've read a few books where the seemingly inexorable rise of technology has been slowed.

 

[Aldarion]

Even better, add magic.

Scientific process and thus technological progress beyond "artisan" part is based heavily on there being logical design of the reality, rules you can discover and exploit.

But if you throw in the element of randomness with a "soft" magic system... you create a major problem for any technological development.

 

[pmmg]

I think magic too but for different reasons.

Necessity is the mother of invention, but magic takes away the necessity, thus...no reason to invent.

Religion too... and/or.... I'll just say bad government, and bad economics.

Maybe also world wide disaster, like the plague?

 

[Finchbearer]

I think they make sense yes, from what I’ve read.

During the Industrial Revolution lots of people were suspicious of machinery and many industries changed or fell into obscurity in favour of ‘progress’. At the advent of WWI obviously the war machine put a hold on progress to some ways and other ways in moved society forward, then there was a pandemic with the Spanish flu - disease and pestilence will put a lot of things on hold as we now know - then a bit of partying and reconnaissance went on before yet another catastrophic war. WWII again put a hold on a lot of progress but also thrust society into a new age, but people sought a simpler time where women would go back to their traditional roles and men too - that suspicion that you mentioned I think will put a hold on a lot of things.

So maybe I’m saying that progress is not always progress and human suspicion of technology can do a lot of damage. Throw in war and disease and it can change a lot of things.

 

[pmmg]

I see I answered the wrong question....

Of the two reasons presented, I think the first one is the more plausible. I could definitely see reducing to zero to make sure.

The second, will work for a story, but I would start asking questions. Kind of along the lines of the same way we deal with government leaks. Stuff gets out, no one knows whos really responsible, those in power gripe, but they probably dont mean it. And nothing happens.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Two of the main things that allowed massive advancement and continued advancement were the printing press and (simplified) the plow or the ability to produce excess food. In a world where it is difficult to pass knowledge from generation to generation and to the masses, it's more difficult to advance. A similar result could be achieved by limiting how many people could learn to read. Keeping the masses dumb can slow advancement. But more importantly, without excess food production, people don't have time to advance. It's a basic hierarchy of needs situation. If you spend all your time getting enough food to feed the family and stay alive, you aren't out there thinking about creating the light bulb. The more brutal the setting, in particular a cold setting, the slower things will advance until some form of mass food production comes along. Any wicked critter could achieve a similar result... fireflies that are really made of fire? There goes the crops damned near every fall. What if locust swarms were seasonal instead of spread out over decades? Sheeeeit. Not to mention things that hunt and eat farmers.

And, of course, magic. That can function in a multitude of ways.

 

[Finchbearer]

Two of the main things that allowed massive advancement and continued advancement were the printing press and (simplified) the plow or the ability to produce excess food. In a world where it is difficult to pass knowledge from generation to generation and to the masses, it's more difficult to advance. A similar result could be achieved by limiting how many people could learn to read. Keeping the masses dumb can slow advancement. But more importantly, without excess food production, people don't have time to advance.

Yeah, this ^

The 19th century is such an interesting time period so much went on it’s difficult to condense into a comment on a forum - but I think you are on the right lines of enquiry into what could slow progress.

 

[ThinkerX]

I dealt with this issue in my books. The main means of suppressing technological advancement was making the printing press a church/state monopoly - unauthorized private possession of printing presses being a capital offence. The reason being that much of the empire was dependent on 'people power' - aka 'slavery.' Slaves were a measure of wealth, and anything that negatively affected that wealth could not be allowed, unless necessary for the state (nationwide signal towers) or toys for the wealthy.

The other thing, which pertains to the development of present-day technology, is something that gets glossed over - much of it came about by accident. Key principles in chemistry and physics came about through improbable chains of events. Without those sequences, technology would have likely stalled out at the late 18th/early 19th century level, maxing out with steam engines, crude black and white photography, hot air balloons, and so on. This is what kind of sort of happened in my setting, though I didn't really go into it. Basically, the underlying mathematical/logical model needed for scientific examination didn't get developed.

In support of this, apart from gunpowder, the technology of 1600 AD was roughly on a par with the technology of 200 AD. The Greeks and Romans had the potential to develop technology, but this was deliberately suppressed. (People power issue.) Had that been overcome, they might have attained a 17th-18th level of technology before running into the second issue.

 

[Finchbearer]

What you hit on thinker x is certainly an important point about the ‘enslaved working classes’ which is really the majority of the population. Keep em dumb and they’ll stay in their lane, in turn keeping the people with all the wealth and knowledge in control and in positions of power. Nothing has really changed

 

[Aldarion]

In support of this, apart from gunpowder, the technology of 1600 AD was roughly on a par with the technology of 200 AD. The Greeks and Romans had the potential to develop technology, but this was deliberately suppressed. (People power issue.) Had that been overcome, they might have attained a 17th-18th level of technology before running into the second issue.

I don't think it was deliberately suppressed, but... more likely, slave-owning societies simply don't have any real impetus for technological advancement.

 

[Mad Swede]

It depends on how you've worked your setting out. Keith Roberts did something like this in Pavane, where the basis for technological stasis is that the Reformation never happened. Alternatively you could have some major natural event like the sea rising causing technological regression, as Richard Cowper did in The Road to Corlay.

 

[ThinkerX]

In the OP's case, I'd go for 'people power' (slavery) plus the 'grand sages'/'rulebook' approach. The 'people power' thing suppresses the need for technological development.

The 'grand sages'/'rulebook' is more insidious. Basically, there were a number of brilliant scholars and engineers, treated almost as saints, who 'sort of' figured out how things worked. They came up with approaches that worked for a range of limited applications - everything from spyglasses to steam engines but were dead wrong on most of the underlying principles. Their work was enshrined in a series of authoritarian rulebooks or manuals - 'this is how you build X, and this is why/how it works. Do not deviate.' If available in this society, these rulebooks would be printed. Minor infractions/deviations result in fines or flogging or whatever. More serious violations get the offender exiled or killed. All backed up with 'only imbeciles think they know more than the sages!'

 

[pmmg]

Well...I did figure out cold fusion, but I wouldn't want to be an imbecile, so....

 

[A. E. Lowan]

I don't think it was deliberately suppressed, but... more likely, slave-owning societies simply don't have any real impetus for technological advancement.

Oh, yes, there was intentional suppression for centuries. And I mean centuries. The only reason Europe had a Renaissance at all was because a single Pope had a mind more bent to war than theology or politics and he took on a wait and see position. And boy, did we see. The Church couldn't stuff that genie back in no matter how much they tried, and it resulted in much of what we know as the Reformation. Good times.

If I was slowing technology, though, I'd go with a combination of suppression and natural disasters, which is pretty much what actually happened to us. The world ended. A lot.

 

[pmmg]

The only reason Europe had a Renaissance at all was because a single Pope had a mind more bent to war than theology or politics and he took on a wait and see position.

I think there was a bit more to it than that. You sure that was the only reason?

 

[A. E. Lowan]

I think there was a bit more to it than that. You sure that was the only reason?

Pope Leo was an interesting guy. But, it's worth noting, that up until Leo most of the heretics who were burned for espousing the "theory" that the Earth was not only not the center of the universe, but that it revolved around the Sun, when anyone could look and see that the Sun moved across the sky, were themselves theologians and members of the Roman Catholic Church.

Now, of course we can't render entire movements of thought and religion into nice, meme-friendly soundbites. We could do a whole, "We Didn't Start the Fire: The Renaissance Edition" thing and it still wouldn't really dig into a concept that represents a sea change in how we, as Eurocentric thinking follows, think not only about the world, but about our literal place in the heavens and our relationship with deity. So, no, it wasn't the only reason, but given we're talking about what was quite literally the most politically and religiously powerful positions in the "known world" at the time, yes, Leo's whims did really have an impact. And that impact would resonate.

So, given that, do you have some of the assignment completed, yourself, or would it help if I assigned some reading?

 

[Aldarion]

Oh, yes, there was intentional suppression for centuries. And I mean centuries. The only reason Europe had a Renaissance at all was because a single Pope had a mind more bent to war than theology or politics and he took on a wait and see position. And boy, did we see. The Church couldn't stuff that genie back in no matter how much they tried, and it resulted in much of what we know as the Reformation. Good times.

If I was slowing technology, though, I'd go with a combination of suppression and natural disasters, which is pretty much what actually happened to us. The world ended. A lot.

I'll answer rest of it elsewhere, but again: "intentional suppression" is a myth. Catholic Church in fact supported science, and one can in fact argue that the Christian idea of "God as an architect" is what gave birth to modern science to begin with.

As I said: science requires world to be arranged according to internal logic. Having God "build" the world, the idea of intelligent design, basically demands internal logic because that is how we as humans tend to design things. Meanwhile, world birthed from chaos on its own would be inherently chaotic.

Therefore, religion and science are intimately connected, and remained so all the way until nearly 20th century. Almost no premodern philosophers and scientists were atheists - not even the Greeks. A great lot were heretics, though.

 

[pmmg]

Seriously, would you read the things I might assign to you? I know you are an educated person, but I was not the one who said something, on its face, not true. If I let that stand, what will people think of us?

The Renaissance, of course, had many reasons and causes. The pope/s at the time certainly had an influence. But they alone were only part of the whole.

Even in the topic of this thread, what could slow progress, religion could have a big effect, but the world is too big for one thing to really stop it.

I will agree that suppression and natural disasters could cause this, and serve that purpose in the story.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

I'll answer rest of it elsewhere, but again: "intentional suppression" is a myth. Catholic Church in fact supported science, and one can in fact argue that the Christian idea of "God as an architect" is what gave birth to modern science to begin with.

As I said: science requires world to be arranged according to internal logic. Having God "build" the world, the idea of intelligent design, basically demands internal logic because that is how we as humans tend to design things. Meanwhile, world birthed from chaos on its own would be inherently chaotic.

Therefore, religion and science are intimately connected, and remained so all the way until nearly 20th century. Almost no premodern philosophers and scientists were atheists - not even the Greeks. A great lot were heretics, though.

I'm going to give you four words. "And yet it moves." The Church supported science that supported what they wanted to see or believe or what was the most politically expedient or beneficial, because we can't for an instant forget that the Catholic Church was, and is, one of the wealthiest and most powerful corporations in the pretty much ever. The Church had scientists, yes, and researchers, yes, and scholars of vast and deep knowledge who made discoveries about the world around them that could have changed the world and advanced technology by hundreds of years.

So... where is it?

Well, a whole lot was held in the minds of the heretics who made public ideas and theories that did not agree with the Church. They burned. A lot was held in books that somehow managed to survive the ages from ancient Greece and even further east as the Silk Road travelled. A lot were burned. But more, maybe even much more, were kept.

Did you know that the Vatican Library has, at their own admission, the most extensive collection of ancient manuscripts in the world? And do you know that no one outside of the Vatican itself is given entrance, much less access to the collections? It's so exclusive that there isn't even a published catalogue, no lists, no little typed cards. No one not in the in crowd sees it, and all of them have the same reasons for keeping secrets.

Roughly a thousand years. That's how long the Church "supported" science, kept safe the knowledge of the ages, educated men and boys, as long as they were one of theirs, and learned incredible things. They didn't share, but that's okay because surely they would, eventually, out of the kindness of their Catholic hearts.

Kind of sucked if you didn't agree with them, or invented technology that opened knowledge up to those outside the in-crowd. But sometimes... sometimes a small change happened and that small change could grow. Move. Was it a act by a suddenly sympathetic and supportive Church?

Ask Galileo.