Sure. Although in that agreement it is worth recalling that the default position of humanity - even today - is to fumble and fail to make the sort of progress that is, technically speaking, in easy reach. There weren't any physical barriers between the Romans and a 21st century living standard. They just didn't get a couple of key organisational things right (like research, pursuing mechanisation and understanding the importance of cheap energy). Not unreasonably so, they did well compared to expectations.
A big part of the (ongoing?) failure vs the limits of the possible is the apparently non-negotiable instincts we all have to determine truth based on number of believers, good looks, tradition, power, guesswork or status games rather than evidence and good arguments.
In that line of thinking a culture that sees age as a good in itself is at a disadvantage to one that sees age as correlating with valuable things.
Devereaux & I probably agree on this one. In that article he identifies pursuing mechanisation and cheap energy as vital. He also stresses the importance of understanding the principles of the process which I'd class under research.
It is unlikely that the Romans could have had an industrial revolution, given that they were limited by being human and the conditions that caused the revolution in the Europe weren't present in Rome. But there was nothing actually stopping the Romans.
A big part of the (ongoing?) failure vs the limits of the possible is the apparently non-negotiable instincts we all have to determine truth based on number of believers, good looks, tradition, power, guesswork or status games rather than evidence and good arguments.
In that line of thinking a culture that sees age as a good in itself is at a disadvantage to one that sees age as correlating with valuable things.