| > Late compared to what? I have developed a sort of notion about the inevitability of invention which I believe can be generalized to the discovery of other concepts or the development of abstract ideas. It works basically like this: Nearly all inventions require prerequisite inventions. For example, the ipod required transistors and batteries (among many other things) to exist before it could be invented. Looking back at history, we can compile lists of technologies that would have been prerequisites for other technologies. We can determine when these prerequisites were met, and then compare that date to the date of invention. Is there a small gap between the two, or a large one? Many inventions have very small gaps between their genesis and the fulfillment of their prerequisites. Powered heavier-than-air aircraft are a good example; they were created within years of the creation of a suitably light and powerful internal combustion engine. Some inventions have very large gaps between their genesis and the fulfillment of their technical prerequisites. If you were a "Connecticut Yankee" in King Arthur's Court, these are the inventions you would [re]invent. Things like the phonograph. Basic clockwork, wax, needles, and parchment are all that you need to create a rudimentary phonograph that works well enough to prove the concept (to show how simple it is: if you've got a shitty vinyl record laying around, you can play it back with a paper cup with a needle stuck through the bottom). Inventions that came long after their strict prerequisites can be considered "late". They weren't waiting for technology or better materials, only waiting for somebody to have the idea. The vast majority of inventions were not particularly late. |