What would technology in 2016 be like if there was no WW1 or WW2? Would jet engines or rockets ever be invented...

I think we would be further along. War is not the only thing that drives scientific research; on the contrary, it often can damage it. Look at the Middle East; shit tons of very destructive war there, but nothing comes of the governments' scientific research attempts but mystery nukes & poison gas, neither of which has much if any use besides for war. The reason the wars brought so much scientific advancement was because of all of the money governments spent on it for war, but had they done the same thing during a peaceful time, we would've had at least an equal amount of advancement & probably more, since there could be a lot more international communication & the research would not be based upon creating weaponry which is only useful for war but rather on creating useful consumer goods.

So you guys think technology would've developed insanely fast in the 20th century no matter what basically? I don't know if I can see the world going from horses and steam locomotives to going to the moon even FASTER than it happened irl with no catalyst event

About 60s or 70s level. Shit really.

Thanks dead people.

19th century was really the kicker for insanely fast technology being developed. Most ideas from the 20th century piggy-backed on the 19th century discoveries and ideas

I don't know necessarily about the moon, being that building rockets doesn't really have practical application besides war & getting the moon, which itself doesn't really have practical application - at least, it didn't then, & it doesn't now. Although we probably still would have built satellites as astronomical knowledge improved which would have required rockets, so maybe, but the particular achievement of putting a man on the moon probably would have been later, and might not have been such a huge deal. But I do believe that our standard of living would definitely be higher.

Yeah but the differences in the average person's life from 1790 to 1890 are way less than 1890 to 1990

>So you guys think technology would've developed insanely fast in the 20th century no matter what basically?
Yes. Technological growth happens not through sudden impetus, but through existing economic and technological infrastructure.

Consider the incredible technological revolution we've lived through. I'm not even 30 yet, and I can remember news broadcasts about the mere existence of the internet. I remember the first person I knew out of all my friends and family who had access to the internet.

And now, in 20 years, the internet has permeated every facet of our lives, and a device that weighs less than a deck of cards creates an augmented reality program that works by tracking your location from fucking outer space, all for a stupid game.

And at the same time, you could explain all that to a computer Engineer in the 1960s and they would get it. All that makes sense about how to go about things. But if you asked them why don't they build that, they'd raise all kinds of practical problems. Most of them have to do with the very precise manufacturing process of computer processors. You don't have any of that, you can't build an iPhone, even if you understand an iPhone.

Similarly, the concept of "rocket to the moon" was understood well before WWII. The hard part was getting the thing to actually hold together under the tremendous forces of the rocket, while still being lightweight. And that basically requires a lot of very unsexy manufacturing processes built up over the course of the 20th century.

The internet has been around since the 60s. The last 30 years is simply more widespread technology, it is not new technology, it is just improved and cheaper, nothing ground breaking though. Like you say, a 60s computer scientist would get it all.

But it was war which rocketed technology into this new age, for every year of ww2 we advanced apparently 5 normal years in terms of technological advancement.

Here's another interesting question:

Is the forced technology jump due to war actually beneficial?
Adding a bunch of new technology while society stagnates socially, emotionally and philosophically seems to be pretty dangerous.
What if we're not mentally prepared to deal with all the side-effects of new technology?

For a simple example look at the African or Middle-Eastern tribes that get sold guns and mortar yet never rise up from their tribal mentality.

I think we all need to see how awesome techno-barbarians will be before making that judgement.

But yeah you are right, that's what the whole CURRENT YEAR argument is about. Apparently if we have internet and iphones we're no long Homo Sapien Sapien and must stop killing each other and being dicks. As if technology has magically evolved us.

>1790 to 1890 are way less than 1890 to 1990

It's the other way. The differences between 1790 and 1890s are far greater. You are underestimating the impact of the 19th century

1890 really wasn't that long ago

Explain to me how an average citizen's life is more similar between 1990 and 1890 than 1890 and 1790. In 1990 an average person in a 1st world country gets home from their white collar job and watches TV while their children play Nintendo and their wife heats up leftovers in a microwave. How in the hell is life in 1890 more similar to that than life in 1790? Sure in 1790 maybe the average person was a farmer and in 1890 they worked in a factory. But they're both still poor as shit.

>The last 30 years is simply more widespread technology, it is not new technology, it is just improved and cheaper, nothing ground breaking though.
Literally could be said about all technology. GPS, widespread Internet, solar panels, hell, even vidya, all were pretty damn groundbreaking.
>But it was war which rocketed technology into this new age, for every year of ww2 we advanced apparently 5 normal years in terms of technological advancement.
It was also war which fucked over billions of lives globally & damaged industry, development, & research everywhere but in the United States, which was pretty much the only country that benefited (aside from all the dead soldiers & the military-industrial complex). It wasn't the war specifically, but all of that munty, hunty.

But even beyond technology the lessons those wars taught us are very valuable to the human journey.

But i worry because already people are reverting back to the behaviour which caused those wars. I'm not some libtard but nationalism is cancer.

Lol. If western European countries or the us had to endure the conditions common in Africa or the middle East they'd be just as tribal.

>What would technology in 2016 be like if there was no WW1 or WW2?
Probably better than todays technology, without all the death, destruction and military focus.

>Would jet engines or rockets ever be invented? Would large passenger aircraft exist? Would electronics develop without WW2?
yes, yes and yes

The Average American living in a city in 1890 gets news coverage updated several times a day all over the world. He knows what's happening in Germany just as quickly as someone in Germany does. He rides some kind of combustion engine to get about his day. He goes home and enjoys mass culture entertainment enjoying the same national celebrities as anyone else, usually actors, musicians or sports icons. Even a man of modest means can easily have investments in far flung corners of the globe, and he is probably concerned because he and others lent money to what he thought was a 2nd rate economy, and it turns out is a 4th rate economy, likely to default on him, unless a concert of European Powers can force an unpopular government on the regime to make them pay Denbts.

Politically, he votes in one of two major national parties by universal male suffrage, largely split into Urban versus Rural divides, and ethnic immigrant voting blocks.

The man from 1990 and 1890 share this. This man from 1790 does not. The man from 1890 is poor as shit, and so is the man from 1790, but then so is the man from 1990.

>But they're both still poor as shit.
>everyone in 1890 is poor as shit

Your ignorance is showing. You don't sound too well read, either, especially on Victorian or Edwardian Literature.

1890 wasn't that far off. Your grandfather's father probably lived then. It's only one or two generations away from being firsthand information.

A person living in 1890 would have no qualms about much of what someone in the 1990 would have. The internet would probably be the most shocking, but then again, people in 1890 were already suspecting that the Internet would exist.

Someone living in 1790, however, would be shocked to understand that humans were developing rocketry, industry, automobiles, trains, could traverse the world in 70 days, and were now mapping the galaxy.

Does anybody else feel like technology has stagnated? Since the 1960's everything is pretty much the same with the only exception being computers.

People still live the same, they drive a car to work, they come home to their suburb, they entertain themselves with electronics, the eat processed packaged food, the only thing that's different is the vacuum tube TV is now a computer with the internet.

We're now in this weird cultural stagnation too where the popular culture is just remakes of shit that's already been done in the 90's and 80's

Biology seems like the only place where there's potential for large growth

Is the singularity just a giant meme?

>But even beyond technology the lessons those wars taught us are very valuable to the human journey.
I agree, but a) it sucked to have to learn them the hard way like that, b) a lot of people still haven't learned them, & c) technology is the point of this thread.
>But i worry because already people are reverting back to the behaviour which caused those wars. I'm not some libtard but nationalism is cancer.
I agree; see my b point above, haha. I truly fear for the future.

You are so deluded matey. 1890 is before planes, rockets, even cars, they only had trains. The Victorians said everything had been invented. 2016 would be a massive culture shock to them. 1790 and 1890 are far more similar. A side from steampower and telegraphs, not much is different.

>1790 and 1890 are far more similar. A side from steampower and telegraphs, not much is different.

Lol...I don't mean to insult, but you are seriously hurting here
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19th_century

>The 19th century (1 January 1801 – 31 December 1900) was the century marked by the collapse of the Spanish, Napoleonic, Holy Roman and Mughal empires. This paved the way for the growing influence of the British Empire, the Russian Empire, the United States, the German Empire, the French colonial empire and Meiji Japan, with the British boasting unchallenged dominance after 1815. After the defeat of the French Empire and its allies in the Napoleonic Wars, the British and Russian empires expanded greatly, becoming the world's leading powers. The Russian Empire expanded in central and far eastern Asia. The British Empire grew rapidly in the first half of the century, especially with the expansion of vast territories in Canada, Australia, South Africa and heavily populated India, and in the last two decades of the century in Africa. By the end of the century, the British Empire controlled a fifth of the world's land and one quarter of the world's population. During the post Napoleonic era it enforced what became known as the Pax Britannica, which had ushered into unprecedented globalisation, Industrialisation, and economic integration on a massive scale.

>The 19th century was an era of rapidly accelerating scientific discovery and invention, with significant developments in the fields of mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, electricity, and metallurgy that laid the groundwork for the technological advances of the 20th century.[3]

Yes, it's just becoming improved and cheaper. Space expansion is almost dead, i mean really a few probes is absolutely pathetic in the grand scheme of things. We should be colonising the solar system. And were are our deportation devices.

We have the collective brains now to invent literally anything but we don't. We can't even beat cancer.

Here's an example of the huge differences between 1790 and 1890:

A man in 1790 would have to wait nearly 30 years to see a dedicated packet delivery service to Britain.

The man from 1890 would be astonished that they shaved a few days off of parcel delivery from Liverpool to Boston.

The man from 1790 would be astonished that there's a service to get a parcel from Liverpool to Boston.

I would also like to add the massive global psychological trauma that world wars cause.
Let's not forget that they spawned Fascism and Communism and also led to political fuckup that was the Cold War.
Can you imagine a how the economy would have been if half the world wouldn't have been run into the ground by Communism?

The discussion is about technology, the continual rise and fall of nations means nothing here.

Regardless the majority of the progress made in the 19th century would not greatly affect peoples every day lives. The technological gains of the 20th century do completely.

You're really grasping at straws, a man today wakes up to an electric alarm, shaves with an electric razor, watches tv, uses the internet, drives in his personal car, spends all day at a computer, comes home and watches tv. Completely different to a man in 1890, which is far more similar to 1790.

Just give it up

And a man in 2016 gets same day delivery.

However
>The man from 1790 would be astonished that there's a service to get a parcel from Liverpool to Boston.
No, you could send parcels to America well before then.

We're pretty tribal already.
t.European

What I meant was the capacity of the population to understand the implications of the stuff they are using.

I gave African tribes as an example since they understand how to use modern weapons, but they don't understand the scientific and industrial power required to create them.

>No, you could send parcels to America well before then.
Yes, by hoping a ship might arrive that would be interested in packet shipping, usually to fill out spare cargo space. Scheduled trans-atlantic packet delivery didn't start until the Black Ball line in 1817.

>The Average American living in a city in 1890 gets news coverage updated several times a day all over the world.
No; maybe in Europe and maybe little things about the colonies centering around the colonists.
>He knows what's happening in Germany just as quickly as someone in Germany does.
Excuse me? No. This is only true today because of television & mass communication that has not yet been invented in 1890.
>He rides some kind of combustion engine to get about his day.
No. Maybe public transit, but he almost definitely does not have a car.
>He goes home and enjoys mass culture entertainment enjoying the same national celebrities as anyone else, usually actors, musicians or sports icons.
No. Entertainment was much more expensive as compared today & was certainly not national.
>Even a man of modest means can easily have investments in far flung corners of the globe,
Not a man of modest means, and further, companies were far less international.
Also,
>living in a city
was rarer; only about 35% of Americans lived in cities in 1890.

You'd usually pay for a courier on the other end.

This is nuts. What are you talking about, the average man didn't have a car in 1890, no one had cars, it would take days to get news from Germany to America, it would probably go through undersea wires as code and then have to be sent out to the media which prints it the next day at the earliest. No one has a wireless radio yet. Globalism is on the rise yes but that doesn't affect daily life of the majority of people in the way it does today.

Communism as an ideology is rooted in thought from hundreds or even thousands of years before the 20th century, and even its most popular form, Marxism, formed in the 19th century. The world wars didn't start communism, it just put a state that utilized communist ideology as an excuse to be a global empire (but which was certainly not a socialist state ever since the 30s).
Anyway, yes, the world would be much better developed.

Okay, ignoring the political upheavals that created the modern political landscape, let's just focus on the technology.

>Regardless the majority of the progress made in the 19th century would not greatly affect peoples every day lives

Trains, automobiles, industrialization, engines, radios, x-ray, electricity, light bulbs, photography, plastics, battery, telephone, film, telegraph, typewriter, voice recording,

Let's not forget: Theory of Evolution, electromagnetism), mathematics (non-Euclidean geometry, group theory) and chemistry (organic chemistry). By the end of the 19th century, scientists were able to synthesize hundreds of organic compounds.

Please...for Charles Darwin's sake....just stop.

Pic related, New York City, 1890.

London, early 1900s youtube.com/watch?v=DVQiEJW7RWg

I'm loling at you

Oh I get it. You're not making an alternative case, you're just appallingly ignorant. Let's start with the first one, and focus on that.

This is the morning copy of the New York Journal, February 17th, 1898. The Maine sunk at 21:40 February 16th, 1898. About 9 hours later in the middle of the night, it's front page news, and the man in New York is receiving his manufactured outrage.

Tell me, how would you get news of the ships sinking from Havana to New York in 1790?

All those things come into common widespread use between 1890 and now, not 1790 and 1890. Way to prove yourself wrong.

>The world wars didn't start communism, it just put a state that utilized communist ideology as an excuse to be a global empire (but which was certainly not a socialist state ever since the 30s)
into a position to be a global empire.

Sorry, that sentence made no sense.

>No; maybe in Europe and maybe little things about the colonies centering around the colonists.

No. Once again, do us all a favor, and PICK UP A FUCKING BOOK.

>Excuse me? No. This is only true today because of television & mass communication that has not yet been invented in 1890.

You're a dumbass.

>No. Entertainment was much more expensive as compared today & was certainly not national.

Your ignorance is showing yet again!

>Not a man of modest means, and further, companies were far less international.

Holy shit....stupid as stupid does.

Please shut up.

And in 2016 you see it happening livestreamed from someones phone. What is your point. Are you seriously claiming the telegraph is a bigger change than planes, cars and dragon dildos i mean cell phones.

>Resorting to literally just lying
oky.jpg

This reply is just you insulting him over every point he brought up instead of actually discussing your point of view. Why do you think you're smart

What the fuck are you even trying to argue for anymore?

Thanks for proving my point that 1890 is not so different than 1990.

Where did I lie?

Do you really want me to waste time dissecting this post when you could easily just, I don't know, look at Wikipedia and learn that mass communication was already a thing by 1890.

Companies were already international by 1890.

Entertainment was cheap as shit in 1890.

>And in 2016 you see it happening livestreamed from someones phone. What is your point.
You go from claiming something was straight up impossible in 1890 to it being no big deal.

So you have a better electronic transmission now, a refinement of the same process. In 1790, what device would convey you news of Havana? What method would anyone on the globe have to get that information that even a bum could access in 1890?

A cellphone is simply Alexander Graham Bell's telephone (invented in 1876) mixed with radio waves (perfected in 1867). Don't forget those electrical motor generators fro the 1870s.

>war is a good thing because technological advancement!!

Just thinking about it, but isn't this a huge argument against the free market and for centralized state capitalist societies? All innovation during wars is not driven by private investors, but my massive public spending with heavy levels of taxation. For example, if you believe that WW2 got the USA out of the Great Depression, then it makes you a firm Keynasian.

I thought was the massive amounts of public spending that unfroze the economy, not the war itself.

Not arguing, just wondering what the other theories are.

A news story going from Cuba to New York is not the same as a news story coming from some place such as Indonesia or Madagascar to America, user, and you know it, yet you still say people of the 1890s got constant global news coverage in a similar manner to people in the 1990s did. Do you really think a news story about a major hurricane in Indonesia would be received in New York in 1890 the day of, in the same way as in the 90s?
Also, I'm not arguing that the 1790s are the same as the 1890s, I'm arguing that the 1990s were vastly different from the 1890s.

Okay, you made no arguments here.

>mass communication was already a thing by 1890.
Obviously, but it was nowhere near as extensive as it was in the 1990s, and took a totally different form.
>Companies were already international by 1890.
I never said they weren't, but that they were far less so. In 1890, the companies whose stock was available for purchase were American or European only and did most of their work in America or Europe. In 1990, you could easily buy stocks in Chinese, Japanese, Indian, etc etc companies. This would have been entirely impossible in 1890. Also, in 1890, American companies' manufacturing took place almost entirely in the USA; by 1990, manufacture had been largely outsourced to other countries, even though the companies were still American. This had been happening since the 70s as the economy of the USA shifted from being industry-based to service-based.
>Entertainment was cheap as shit in 1890.
Not as compared to the 90s. In 1990, even very poor families almost always had a TV as well as a radio and could afford to see multi million dollar Hollywood movies at the theater sometimes. Do you think your average person of the 1890s had any of that, or any equivalents to it within constant reach? Maybe if he lived in the city & had a good middle class job, but as statistics show, he probably didn't.

It was the public spending. The war ruined Europe so much that in the 50s, around 50% of the world's GDP came from the United States. Obviously European countries spent a whole lot on war, but they were clearly not helped by it.

The reason the economy was so bad in the 1930's was because society was transitioning from agricultural based to industrial based, mainly caused by the internal combustion engine. Unemployment was rampant because millions of farmers were made irrelevant by tractors. The war caused a rapid expansion in industry to produce military goods, then it switched over to consumer goods after the war. The war was a bad thing because the transition would've happened anyway, it just would have taken longer which is preferable to having all of Europe and Japan destroyed. The war is good meme is a broken glass fallacy.

>Obviously, but it was nowhere near as extensive as it was in the 1990s, and took a totally different form.

It was still a thing. You willfully lied in your ignorance.

Did you know by 1890s, the already had underwater sea cables on the ocean floor?
>In 1890, the companies whose stock was available for purchase were American or European only and did most of their work in America or Europe.
No shit international trade was European dominated, it's called empire.

>Do you think your average person of the 1890s had any of that, or any equivalents to it within constant reach?

Uh...yeah. Books were in endless supply. (in b4 you don't know how to read) If you had knowledge of Victorian literature, you would know entertainment was in endless supply as well

Pic related for starters (in b4 youre too shy so its not really entertainment). Theater was widely attended. Circus, Balls, dances, sports.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_era#Entertainment

>but as statistics show, he probably didn't.
Which statistics is that again?

>A news story going from Cuba to New York is not the same as a news story coming from some place such as Indonesia or Madagascar to America, user, and you know it
Oh lol, you really think you have something going here, don't you.

chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn99021999/1894-10-04/ed-1/seq-1/#date1=1836&index=11&rows=20&words=Madagascar&searchType=basic&sequence=0&state=&date2=1922&proxtext=Madagascar&y=0&x=0&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=1

October 3rd, the French Blockade Madagascar. October 4th, the fucking Omaha Daily Bee has the news, and knows where the resident general has gone to.

> I'm arguing that the 1990s were vastly different from the 1890s.

In what ways?

we can't lynch niggers anymore

Remember when I said such stories would center around colonists? How often do you think people of the 1890s got to hear about natives, especially those in non-colonial territories? There were many places on earth which were untouched by mass media, and it did not have global reach, particularly not as much as it did in the 90s.

>It was still a thing. You willfully lied in your ignorance.
Yes it was a thing. I specifically said it didn't exist in the same way as it did in the 90s, not that it didn't exist. It existed, but it was far less widespread and accessible.
>Did you know by 1890s, the already had underwater sea cables on the ocean floor?
Did you know that by the 1990s, they already had transcontinental communication systems made of waves that moved through the air/telephone lines at extremely high speeds that could be translated through household objects such as telephones, television sets, radios, and computers, none of which besides telephones (which even then were not owned by the majority of the population) even existed in 1890?
>No shit international trade was European dominated, it's called empire.
So you admit it was less global, like I originally said?
>Uh...yeah. Books were in endless supply. (in b4 you don't know how to read) If you had knowledge of Victorian literature, you would know entertainment was in endless supply as well
Americans of the 1890s did not have access to a similar amount of cheap media that the 1990s did, as should be made extremely obvious to you by the fact that all of those things existed in the 90s and were cheaper, both to produce & to consume. Americans of the 90s had more access to the same entertainment as Americans of the 1890s, as well as more entertainment.

>Which statistics is that again?
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_States

>Remember when I said such stories would center around colonists? How often do you think people of the 1890s got to hear about natives, especially those in non-colonial territories? There were many places on earth which were untouched by mass media, and it did not have global reach, particularly not as much as it did in the 90s.
Oh. So we've gone from the 1790s is like the 1890s because of technological similarity, to technology doesn't matter, it's the quality of reporting.

OK. But news reporting is STILL ridiculously western centric in the 1990s and for that matter, the 2010s. So I guess either way, we're STILL like the 1890s.

Your exact words:
>Excuse me? No. This is only true today because of television & mass communication that has not yet been invented in 1890.

Mass communication was already a thing in 1890.

>Did you know that by the 1990s, they already had transcontinental communication systems made of waves that moved through the air/telephone lines at extremely high speeds that could be translated through household objects such as telephones, television sets, radios, and computers, none of which besides telephones (which even then were not owned by the majority of the population) even existed in 1890?

Let's focus on this part: "telephones, television sets, radios, and computers, none of which...even existed in 1890?"

Observe the attached image.

>So you admit it was less global, like I originally said?
Less global? Not sure what that means. You said "there's no such thing as international companies". I said you were wrong. Then you changed it "I meant Asian companies". Then I said, no shit, because Europeans dominated them with their empires.

>as should be made extremely obvious to you by the fact that all of those things existed in the 90s and were cheaper, both to produce & to consume.

>Americans of the 90s had more access to ... more entertainment.

No shit. The argument was ""no entertainment" (you were proven wrong). Then it became "cheaper entertainment" (I provided you a link and gave you information which you probably ignored). Then now it's "more entertainment".

>Americans of the 1890s did not have access to a similar amount of cheap media that the 1990s did
Such as....? Books? Americans had plenty of cheap books. Sports? They were in plenty? The theater was more popular than ever at this time.

>waves that moved through the air/telephone lines at extremely high speeds

1867, Scottish mathematical physicist James Clerk Maxwell.

>Sports? They were in plenty?
Sports in live form were considerably cheaper. No one was paying a days wages to watch mediocre pro-boxing then.

>Oh. So we've gone from the 1790s is like the 1890s because of technological similarity
I never tried to argue that the 1790s and 1890s were similar. You must have me confused with someone else. I have only been arguing that your statements about how similar the 1890s were to the 1990s were wrong or misleading.
>to technology doesn't matter, it's the quality of reporting.
No? I mentioned how technology changed mass media through inventions such as telephone, radio, television, & computers as reasons why mass media were different.
>OK. But news reporting is STILL ridiculously western centric in the 1990s and for that matter, the 2010s. So I guess either way, we're STILL like the 1890s.
It was far less western centric in the 1990s than it was in the 1890s.

Not sure what you're trying to prove here. I assume that's when such waves were discovered, but obviously not when they started being utilized.

>Your exact words:
>>This is only true today because of television & mass communication that has not yet been invented in 1890.
>Mass communication was already a thing in 1890.
My exact words: "mass communication THAT has not yet been invented", not "WHICH has not yet been invented", because I was referring to radio, television, and internet - mass communication that had not been invented.
>Observe the attached image.
Pretty sure that image proves that none of those except telephone existed in 1890.
>Less global? Not sure what that means. You said "there's no such thing as international companies". I said you were wrong. Then you changed it "I meant Asian companies". Then I said, no shit, because Europeans dominated them with their empires.
I literally did not say that. I said exactly that they were "far less international", not that international companies did not exist. You said that people of modest means could afford to invest in far flung corners of the world just as they had in the 90s, which is untrue. Publically traded companies in the 90s were more international in that there were many more based outside of Europe or America, and their manufacturing labor took place often outside of Europe or America.
>No shit. The argument was ""no entertainment" (you were proven wrong). Then it became "cheaper entertainment" (I provided you a link and gave you information which you probably ignored). Then now it's "more entertainment".
I literally did not say "no entertainment". Were you honestly under the impression that I was arguing that entertainment didn't exist in 1890? I said it was more expensive & not national.
>Such as....? Books? Americans had plenty of cheap books. Sports? They were in plenty? The theater was more popular than ever at this time.
People in 1890 very obviously had entertainment, I never argued against that, but there was less of it & it was less accessible. It was also, again not national like it was in 1990, not nearly.

Deluded guy still thinking more change happened between 1790 and 1890 than 1890 to 2016.

Okay then. Comparing the rise of steam and telegraphs to planes cars tv internet phones computers spaceships modern medicine home printers antibiotics etc is just retarded.

Such comparisons are always useless and never conclusive of anything. His statements about how similar 1890 was to 1990 were ignorant & wrong, which is why I'm debating them, but I am in no way arguing that 1890 & 1990 were more (or less) different than 1790 & 1890.

> constant warfare for nearly all its history
> often impervious geographic conditions
> all kind of disease throughout history
> continually exposed to the most devastating invasions

Please explain how the Middle East or Africa had it so worse than Europe, especially the Middle East (which also remained largely at peace from 1600 to 1914 unlike Europe)

They developed agriculture later

TIL: Radio waves didn't get utilized until 1990s

>My exact words: "mass communication THAT has not yet been invented", not "WHICH has not yet been invented", because I was referring to radio, television, and internet - mass communication that had not been invented.

Either way, you got proven wrong by a different user.

>Pretty sure that image proves that none of those except telephone existed in 1890.

Im debating on if you're a troll or not.

Telephone: 1876
Television sets: Motion picture - 1840s
Radios: 1864
Computers: Up for debate

>You said that people of modest means could afford to invest in far flung corners of the world just as they had in the 90s, which is untrue
Can you point this out to me? I've never typed the word "invest" in this thread.

>ublically traded companies in the 90s were more international in that there were many more based outside of Europe or America, and their manufacturing labor took place often outside of Europe or America.
Moving the goal posts, eh?

International companies dominated the globe in the 1890s. Deal with it.

>& it was less accessible.

That's an outright lie. Admit you're wrong already. I've provided links upon links telling you that the Victorian Era experienced an unprecedented growth in the middle class and entertainment

For some reason, you have this foolish notion that 1890 was 500 years ago. IT was literally just two generations ago from being first hand knowledge.

I honestly don't know about Africa but I'm pretty sure that the Middle East has invented agriculture.

>Telephone: 1876
>Television sets: Motion picture - 1840s
>Radios: 1864
>Computers: Up for debate
You are crazed. It doesn't matter if they were invented them, they were not in wide use until the 20th century. You might as well argue that the 60s are the same as today because internet was invented then.

Fucking tard

>For some reason, you have this foolish notion that 1890 was 500 years ago. IT was literally just two generations ago from being first hand knowledge.
Yes it was and yet life was still drastically difference because of the huge technological advances made in the 20th century.
I spent my days in a job that I couldnt even begin to explain to a man alive in 1920 let alone in 1850.

Africa developed it independently much later. They actually went from discovering agriculture to civilisation much quicker than the rest of the world.

Don't you think that if WW1 didnt happen we would just have had a massive war happen at some other point?

>get proven wrong
>durr doesnt matter

What exactly do you think happened once they were invented...? Ignored?
I mean, I understand already that you're pretty fucking retard. I mean, you've never once picked up a book. But I genuinely would like to peer into the depths of such a strange mind.

> yet life was still drastically difference
Not really

> because of the huge technological advances made in the 20th century
Such as...?

> spent my days in a job that I couldnt even begin to explain to a man alive in 1920 let alone in 1850.
Go ahead and try. Unless it's incredibly obscure, then you're probably wrong.

I'm not even that guy, but you proved nobody wrong. Your entire argument is based on the idea that something changes the world the moment it is invented.

>What exactly do you think happened once they were invented...? Ignored?
They were not perfected you fucking mong. The Cell phone was around in the 80s, they didn't take off until the 2000s. The internet was done in the 60s, it didn't get going until the 90s. You clearly have no understanding of how technology develops, how very naive.

>Not really
Yes really, everything we do in our waking lives today is based around the technology and inventions and developments of the 20th century. Your argument is hollow, you think just because they woke up and went to a job and could read the news that life was identical. In that case life hasn't changed in thousands of years, except it has. Also you keep repeating that it was only a few generations ago. As if that means anything at all. It means nothing and has no bearing on this.
>Such as...?
Everything listed in this thread, but sure. Internet, computers, cars, planes, satellites, cell phones, plastic, FUCKNG ELECTRICITY, assembly lines, pens, antibiotics. I could go on, basically just listening all the inventions, discoveries and new technologies of the 20th century, which is incalculable and blows the 19th century out of the water.

But that isn't even to mention all the developments in law, order and governance that came about in the 20th century, without those world wars the way we manage our politics would be very different.

I say again, you are deluded.

>TIL: Radio waves didn't get utilized until 1990s
Excuse me?
>Either way, you got proven wrong by a different user.
No, I didn't, but okay.
>Im debating on if you're a troll or not.
>Telephone: 1876
As I said, existed before 1890.
>Television sets: Motion picture - 1840s
The image does not say this.
>Radios: 1864
Commercial radios did not exist in 1864 and would not in even their most experimental of forms until at the least 1905.
>Computers: Up for debate
Are you implying that the existence of computers before 1890 is "up for debate"?
>Can you point this out to me? I've never typed the word "invest" in this thread.
"Even a man of modest means can have investments in far flung corners of the globe"
>Moving the goal posts, eh?
No, just making the same point consistently. I haven't been changing my arguments like you insist I have.
>International companies dominated the globe in the 1890s. Deal with it.
But they were less widespread, less integrated, less integrated, and their stocks were less accessible than in 1990.
>That's an outright lie. Admit you're wrong already. I've provided links upon links telling you that the Victorian Era experienced an unprecedented growth in the middle class and entertainment
Both the middle class & entertainment was smaller in 1890 than in 1990. Entertainment was more accessible, varied, and inexpensive to people of the 90s.
>For some reason, you have this foolish notion that 1890 was 500 years ago. IT was literally just two generations ago from being first hand knowledge.
No, I don't.

>I'm not even that guy, but you proved nobody wrong...I s-s-wear

Listen, you've been proven wrong in this thread by many Anons. Give it up.

>, which is incalculable and blows the 19th century out of the water.
>literally nearly everything he lists are 19th century inventions/discoveries

You clearly have no understanding of how technology develops, how very naive.

>But that isn't even to mention all the developments in law, order and governance that came about in the 20th century, without those world wars the way we manage our politics would be very different.

Like what......? What new idea came from the 20th century again?

Companies were so much less integrated that I had to say it twice!
I meant to say "less based on international production", not the second "less integrated".

>Listen, you've been proven wrong in this thread by many Anons. Give it up.
No I haven't, repeating that doesn't make you right. You have lost hard.

Your post doesn't even say anything, you've got nothing.

>>literally nearly everything he lists are 19th century inventions/discoveries
1. Most of those are 20th century inventions.
2. Those that are 19th century didn't take off in understanding or widespread use until the 20th century.

Thank you user. I've been working on him for like an hour but he still seems confused.

>No, I didn't, but okay
Right here champ Your excuse?
> I never tried to argue that the 1790s and 1890s were similar.

Oh really? What about right here Your exact words:
>1790 and 1890 are far more similar.

>As I said, existed before 1890.

Do you even know what the fuck you're talking about? We are talking if 1790-1890 had a larger technological impact than 1890-1990. Yes, the telephone was invented between 1790-1890 --- Thanks for proving my point.

>Commercial radios did not exist in 1864 and would not in even their most experimental of forms until at the least 1905.
But earlier, didnt you talk about iPhones? I didn't now those existed in the 1990s...

>"Even a man of modest means can have investments in far flung corners of the globe"
Not my post.

> I haven't been changing my arguments like you insist I have.
But you have.

You: International companies? didn't exist in the 1890s!
Anons: They did.
You: Yeah but they didn't have Asian ones!!!

>Both the middle class & entertainment was smaller in 1890 than in 1990

No shit.

>Entertainment was more accessible, varied, and inexpensive to people of the 90s.
Already given you links that prove entertainment in the 1890s was greater than those in the 1790s

He's so retarded. I normally don't get worked up but this guy takes the cake. How can anything think life in the 19th century was less similar to the 18th century than to the 21st century. And his entire retarded point is that they made early discoveries into radios and telephones in the 19th century.

>No? I mentioned how technology changed mass media through inventions such as telephone, radio, television, & computers as reasons why mass media were different.
And then you argued technology is completely fucking irrelevant, because you didn't realize the telegraph existed, so you moved the goalposts to societal standards being more important then technology, when the fact of technology became inconvenient for you.

>It was far less western centric in the 1990s than it was in the 1890s.
So? If you're going to argue that an Afro-Centric perspective is necessary to count as recieving news coverage of a region, than no, we still don't have globalized news coverage. Your cell phone can't get news from Africa.

In fact, this means that you're more likely to be able to describe the Medieval and Classical world as having globalized, near instantaneous media coverage than today.

>Already given you links that prove entertainment in the 1890s was greater than those in the 1790s
But not greater or even remotely close to that of 1990. Thus making 1890 entertainment levels more like 1790 entertainment levels than 1990 entertainment levels.

The phone didn't see widespread use till the 21st century.

>Your cell phone can't get news from Africa.
Yes it can. Africa is full of ISPs. It is far less backward than you think. It's slow, sure, but they have it.

The fuck? Every single house in 1990 had a phone. Jesus Christ were you born in 2002? Do you know why we say "hang up the phone"?

>19th century tech
Some telegraphs and steam engines
>20th century tech
Computers and spaceships

hmmmmm i guess you're right, not much change

> How can anything think life in the 19th century was less similar to the 18th century than to the 21st century.

Probably the historians who call it the "modern period"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_history

Have you been reading this thread?

My argument: 1790-1890 has a greater technology difference than 1890-1990, which is absolutely true.

>But not greater or even remotely close to that of 1990.
Not sure what you're trying to make. It's already been established that people in 1890/1990 had access to the same sorts of entertainment. The same cannot be said for 1790/1890

>Thus making 1890 entertainment levels more like 1790 entertainment levels than 1990 entertainment levels.
Can you do me a favor and list for each of those 3 years what you think the entertainment was?

Oh trust, me I know that. But this guy (unless you are the guy I've been arguing with), is holding that unless the news where you are is genuinely focused on the African perspective, it simply doesn't count.

Technology is irrelevant, according to his latest standards, in measuring technological progress.

An entire post made up of semantics and crying about who posted what rather than any actual point

Your ignorance is painful. I fear for the world.

>My argument: 1790-1890 has a greater technology difference than 1890-1990, which is absolutely true.
It's absolutely false. Almost all inventions and technologies we use today were invented in the 20th century. This is objective fact and instantly destroys your argument.

>people in 1890/1990 had access to the same sorts of entertainment.
Really, people in 1890 had TVs and radios and portable music players and audiobooks?

> The same cannot be said for 1790/1890
Yes it can, very easily. They both had access to books and plays/shows and not much else.

Yes, technology is completely relevant in measuring technological progress, which is why there was more in the 20th century than 19th.