Reddit mentions: The best engineering & technology history books

One major knock I have with this essay is the presumption that Twitter or similar social media channels are monolithic and trending toward a decrease in intellectual complexity. Especially when so many of today's big ideas are about how such systems are changing the way we think for the better.

More democratic and more powerful authoring tools means that more people have a greater stake in creating and shaping our shared culture. I think those are some pretty big ideas.

Gabler's conception of Twitter and the like is that they are only for sharing personal ephemera, which is revealed when he says:
>Indeed, the gab of social networking tends to shrink one’s universe to oneself and one’s friends, while thoughts organized in words, whether online or on the page, enlarge one’s focus.

My personal experience of these channels (Twitter, or, you know, Reddit) is that they're primarily used for sharing links to words, so it's hard to see the dichotomy Gabler is presenting.

I do think he is correct in one respect about this, however. These systems are increasingly designed to literally award what is likable and popular, rather than what is new or challenging. There is some overlap, of course, but this setup is better for making mediocre, predictable, and bland ideas, rather it is for making truly grand and groundbreaking ones.

> spiritual science

Wat?

Science is a methodology designed to minimize cognitive/conformation biases with the goal of identifying knowledge (admitted to be provisional if/until better knowledge becomes available) that describes the reality in which we live/exist. Science is a tool to push back ignorance whilst allowing the knowledge gained to be considered somewhat credible and supportable.

Spirituality, OTOH, exists entirely in the area of ignorance, and in cognitive/confirmation bias, and provides no supportable or credible service for the understanding of reality, of actual existence.

To put the terms together is an oxymoron that not only appears to present apparently contradictory terms, but actually presents contradictory terms.

> So my debate is pro religious spirituality, if handled correctly, not being a hinderance to scientific progress. Rather being an outlet for which society can benefit from.

And what is this outlet that pro-religious spirituality provides?

The practice of Theistic Religions, from the belief in God(s) and doctrine/dogma/tenets/traditions contained within these Theistic Religions, have a global impact. The theist (i.e., one who believes in intervening supernatural deities) mindset often comes with a list of attributes that are inflicted/forced upon those individuals that are not adherents, and on the local and surrounding societies, and which can be associated with a negative morality.

• An unchanging divinely attributed objective morality that is often written thousands of years ago for a small geo-politico population which is not relevant to any other society without extensive &quot;context&quot; or apologetics<br />

• A morality and doctrine that uses the threat of a non-evidential afterlife/rebirth used as a control by the leaders of the religion to control it's adherents
  
• The threat, and execution, of corporeal punishment/torture/death/lower_level_rebirth used as a control by the leaders of the religion to control it's adherents
  
• The concept of a life cheat through prayers of petition/intercession
  
• The abstention and dismissal of individual responsibility through the excuse of "Deity's/God's/Allah's will/plan"
  
• A morality with bigotry and racism disguised as the Deity's Law/Morality
  
• A morality that provides foundational support of extremist fundamentalists by "moderates" and "liberals" of that religion
  
• A belief that the "answers" provided by religion are to be accepted as they are unimpeachable; with a corollary that the answers should not be questioned -> leads to disingenuous intellectual laziness in all areas
  
• A morality and dogma that limits the ability of adherents to accept that their holy doctrine may be wrong, or to accept outside criticism, resulting in the potential for a violent response if challenged
  
• A doctrine that worship is required/demanded for all by the most "perfect" of deities
  
• A doctrine and morality that adherents often use to rationalize their hypocritical and sanctimoniously pious behavior
  
  Theists, by their belief in some/all of the above, influence (either actively or by passive acceptance) the rest of society by their worldview. Given that the theistic worldview is mostly based upon emotions/feelings/wishful thinking (i.e., Religious Faith, belief without evidence but based upon emotion, wishes, feelings, "I know in my heart of hearts that this is true" conceit of self-affirmation), such a belief system is detrimental to others in many geo-politico-socio situations.
  
  And this pro-religious spirituality is claimed as a benefit to society? I do not see the effects of pro-religious spirituality as beneficial.
  
  > > So my debate is pro religious spirituality, if handled correctly, not being a hinderance to scientific progress. Rather being an outlet for which society can benefit from.
  
  What is this "handled correctly"? If you mean that "pro-religious spiritually" is completely ignored then I agree that pro religious spirituality is not a hindrance to scientific progress. However, actual history has shown us that pro-religious spiritually is a hindrance to scientific progress.
  
  
• A History of the Warfare of Science With Theology in Christendom (2 Volume Set) – published May 1, 1993, by Andrew D. White (1832-1918)
  
  
• History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science – published April 7, 2013, by John William Draper (May 5, 1811 – January 4, 1882)
  
  
• The Victorian Conflict between Science and Religion: A Professional Dimension
  Frank M. Turner, Isis, Vol. 69, No. 3 (Sep., 1978), pp. 356-376
  
  
• Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives (Cambridge Studies in the History of Science) First Edition Edition, 1991, by John Hedley Brooke
  
  
• Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction – August 1, 2002, by Gary B. Ferngren
  
  
• Why the Arabic World Turned Away from Science, Hillel Ofek, The New Atlantis, Number 30, Winter 2011, pp. 3-23.
  
  > My religious spirituality of Christianity claims this universe occurred in a miraculous event due to God.
  
  This is a good example of the effect of pro-religious spirituality. This claim is not based upon any supportable nor credible knowledge/evidence/argument. Rather this claim is based on a combination of an argument from ignorance (God of the Gaps), appeal to emotion, confirmation/cognitive bias, wishful thinking, and/or the ego-conceit of self-affirmation of highly-subjective mind-dependent qualia-experience testimonial (self or from others) evidence equates to a mind-independent credible truth value. To accept such a claim, with it's intrinsic very low level of significance/level of reliability and confidence, especially as part of a foundational worldview, is to establish a personality and mindset that is diametrically opposed to the seeking of actual, credible, and supportable knowledge.
  
  "Pro-religious spirituality," or the alleged entity, God, has no place in any scientific equations, plays no role in any scientific explanations, cannot be used to predict any events, does not describe any thing or force that has yet been detected, and there are no models of the universe in which God's presence is either required, productive, or useful.

I was just asked this the other day by an incoming graduate student. It's really hard -- textbooks are a real hassle. For history, the best book I know, though it's limited in scope, is David Lindberg's The Beginnings of Western Science. It runs up through 1450. After that, you have trouble -- you have to start looking at individual figures or periods. H.F. Cohen's The Scientific Revolution is nice for its period. Then you get really fragmented. The Cambridge Studies in the History of Science series (1 2 3) is really nice for what it covers, if its topics interest you.

For PoS, again, textbooks are hard. I like the Curd and Cover anthology, it's got lots of primary readings with good explanatory material (dt already recommended that one, I see -- I didn't realize it because I've never referred to it by title...). Rosenberg's Routledge Introduction also seems pretty good, though I should warn that I've never read it, I'm going on brief skims and what I know of the author's other stuff (which is great).

Good luck! You can always come back here to ask questions!

Was it some of my words you didn't understand or was it the composition of these words?

I can make a few clarifications, the nano assembler is a machine that can compose new matter atom by atom. The research started in the late 80-ies originally after ideas from Richard Feynman. One can say that the field was initiated by Eric Drexler's book Engines of Creation (you get a copy of that book if you become a senior member of Foresight Institute )

The field has recently taken some great steps forward by Gorman 2008, earlier essential steps forward was e.g. Gerd Binnig and Heinrich Rohrer's scanneling tunelling microscope which they invented 1981 (Nobel prize 1986).

Some words about future economical crises and grey goo can be read about on this page from CRN (Center for Responsible Nanotechnology). At this place is also an easy to read summary of the potentials and risks.

If you haven't seen it before I really recommend watching this short movie "Productive Nanosystems" which was made 2004, sponsored by Mark Simms and Nanorex. The video has later been improved somewhat.

We are not at all working with nano technology, we will only be the glue between enabling technologies and end consumers. Our goal is that all this technology will be easily accessible for everyone, everyone should be able to be an inventor, creating personal super products.

Cool, thanks for sharing! For anyone else interested, Amy Sue Bix wrote a book called Girls Coming to Tech! A History of American Engineering Education for Women

> Book description:

> Engineering education in the United States was long regarded as masculine territory. For decades, women who studied or worked in engineering were popularly perceived as oddities, outcasts, unfeminine (or inappropriately feminine in a male world). In Girls Coming to Tech!, Amy Bix tells the story of how women gained entrance to the traditionally male field of engineering in American higher education.

> As Bix explains, a few women breached the gender-reinforced boundaries of engineering education before World War II. During World War II, government, employers, and colleges actively recruited women to train as engineering aides, channeling them directly into defense work. These wartime training programs set the stage for more engineering schools to open their doors to women. Bix offers three detailed case studies of postwar engineering coeducation. Georgia Tech admitted women in 1952 to avoid a court case, over objections by traditionalists. In 1968, Caltech male students argued that nerds needed a civilizing female presence. At MIT, which had admitted women since the 1870s but treated them as a minor afterthought, feminist-era activists pushed the school to welcome more women and take their talent seriously.

> In the 1950s, women made up less than one percent of students in American engineering programs; in 2010 and 2011, women earned 18.4% of bachelor's degrees, 22.6% of master's degrees, and 21.8% of doctorates in engineering. Bix's account shows why these gains were hard won.

It isn't possible with current technology.

BUT (read Engines of Creation)-
We eventually will have that ability with molecular nanotechnology (ie nanites not carbon nanotubes) ... What that is, is a long discussion but the important bit to it is it would give us the ability to work on problems with cells in the body or dna en mass to do just about whatever we wanted to our bodies including addressing the several causes of aging. 20 years ago they said that it was 50 years away, although it's nearly impossible to guess these things.

The only ways to stave off overpopulation I can think of if mortality is off the table is to not have more kids, create more environment (off planet, underground etc) - which coincidentally becomes pretty possible with molecular nanotechnology, or change the nature of what it is to be human. It's hard to imagine but you could for example go virtual and move in and out of your body if you could model the human brain and how to translate that to and from the structures of the brain.
Sounds way too good to be true but if you achieve the technology there's really no reason for it all not to be possible since it radically affects so many of our abilities.

>I imagine a world where technological progress has been inhibited, and the world has been in a medieval state. (...)

In a "Medieval state", so, that can be summed up by much quicker technological advancement than either in Roman times or during the renaissance?

Medieval as in, religion had much less importance to civic life than in Rome (when religious festivals were a civic duty, which did put Christians at odds with traditions) and much less power than during the renaissance (when the papacy had regained independence from secular states)? a Church which basically is struggling to liberate itself from secular domination - until it did, at the very end of the middle ages, thanks to the Cluniac movement. A church that is the main driving engine of scientific progress (oh, this one will hurt some Redditors' head to no end.)

In short, a "middle ages" that would look nothing like the actual middle ages. This period was anything but low-tech or dominated by religion, and religious institutions such as the papacy and monasteries were incredibly important to scientific/technological progress. I wonder how much time before the public psyche catches up to historical research in this area. Because those views are totally at odds.

Sources:

• God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science
  
• The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, Prehistory to A.D. 1450
  
• The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages: Their Religious, Institutional and Intellectual Contexts - Cambridge Studies in the History of Science
  
• God and Reason in the Middle Ages
  
  

Most historians currently don't really adhere to general theories in general. With Marxist historiography going out of favor, and Christian historiography already having been put into the corner before that, there is a reluctance to make any sweeping statements about all of history.

One situation in history in which technological change has been studied a lot is of course the Industrial Revolution. One text that attempts to explain this process in a way that might be generalized is Margaret Jacobs Scientific Culture and the Making of the Industrial West. But another book that makes a great case for why the Industrial Revolution really was the result of a number of strange coincidences and geographical luck is Kenneth Pomeranz' The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy.

This thread is dangerously close to being an invitation to circlejerk. There are a lot of kooks, yes. If anyone's interested in actually learning more, then read one or two books from a man that's very much not a kook.

His first one is available for free to read in a browser here. It's 30 years old, and despite there being a later updated version available somewhere as an ebook to buy, the only chapter in it that's dated is the one where he talks about how we will build some sort of web of pages on networked computers :) This is a great read, and will expand the world view of anyone who hasn't been exposed to the ideas. I'd go so far as to say that people can't meaningfully participate in any serious conversation about the future without basic understanding of the concepts introduced here. Sadly this group seems to include 99% or more of the population.

http://e-drexler.com/d/06/00/EOC/EOC_Table_of_Contents.html

Then the last one, from a year and a half ago, setting the record straight on why progress the last 30 years has been the way it has, calling out and highlighting a lot of bullshit, and charting a course forward. Not as good a read as the first one, but certainly enlightening. It's not available for free, (except on pirate sites, and I suspect Eric wouldn't mind), so here's the Amazon link.

http://www.amazon.com/Radical-Abundance-Revolution-Nanotechnology-Civilization/dp/1610391136/

If anyone reads this, and posts questions or challenges or anything serious, I'll volunteer to check the thread and reply to each of you.

The idea that the middle ages were "the dark ages" is a modern myth. The middle ages were a period of scientific and artistic progress, and their was no great revolution caused by the enlightenment. It was a continuation of midieval thought. The roots of modern science lie in the middle ages

​

Read Rodney Stark, James Hannam, or edward grant

​

There is a lot of scholarship about the progress of Europe during the middle ages, so this wikipedia article is a nice summary of why it's a misleading conception of the era

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography)

https://www.amazon.com/Reason-Middle-Ages-Edward-Grant/dp/0521003377

Okay, I now understand that you got the correlation measure from that paper instead of calculating it yourself. Why you did not mention this or link to this paper in your OP is beyond me, but whatever.

So: what is the actual correlation referring to? Turns out the correlation is between total innovation rate per decade between 1450-1950 (N=50 decades). The two datasets are (1) Murray's, and (2) Huebner's, who literally gets his data from the innovations included in this book (which are arbitrary innovations the authors of the book liked, I guess).

So you cannot use the fact that the correlation is high to conclude anything about whether Murray's data is culturally biased. You cannot use the fact that the correlation is high to conclude anything about the middle ages in Europe. You also probably shouldn't use it to conclude innovation is declining, mostly because that's not-even-wrong (it's not well-defined).

The Scharff and Dusek reader has been mentioned, but I'd like to put a plug in for the Kaplan reader as well.

The following are also worth checking out...

Peter Paul Verbeek's What Things Do (this is my "if you only read one book about Phil Tech, read this book" book)

Michel Callon's "The Sociology of an Actor-Network"

Don Ihde's Technology and the Lifeworld

Andy Feenberg's Questioning Technology

Albert Borgman's Technology and the Character of Contemporary Life

Martin Heidegger's "The Question Concerning Technology"

Lewis Mumford's Technics and Civilization

Jacques Ellul's The Technological Society

Langdon Winner's "Do Artifacts Have Politics" and The Whale and the Reactor

Hans Jonas' "Technology and Responsibility"

Sunstein and Thaler's Nudge

Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death

Nicholas Carr's The Shallows and The Glass Cage

It's probably worth mentioning that we figured out the density of the earth by measuring how much a known masses are attracted to each other, and then inferring from the strength of gravity what the density must be. The high density basically told us that there had to be a lot of metals down there long before seismic methods made it possible to figure out the specific structure. There's a book about how this was done historically.

This book may not be exactly what you're looking for but it does have a lot of information about the american food industry, food supplies, and refrigeration. I absolutely loved it: https://www.amazon.com/Fresh-Perishable-History-Susanne-Freidberg/dp/0674057228

If you have read any of Eric Drexler's books on nano-technology, like Engines of Creation or Radical Abundance - he expects the future of nano-tech to be Atomically Precise Manufacturing decentralized at the local level.

I'm very interested in futurology & I find it interesting that two trends that seem to be underpinning all technological change in the 21st century are decentralization and disintermediation.

So in a sense, i'd say Marx may be half right - it is the ultimate fate of the means of production to pass from the control of traditional capitalists, but not to the the state, a body whose significance will fade in our lives as the 21st century goes on, but rather pass closer to regular people at the decentralized local level.

I've never seen the TV version, but there was indeed a book of it; my dad had a copy and I used to read it all the time as a child.

Reading through the wiki entry on the TV series, the book sounds like it followed the same format and covered much of the same ground. I'd recommend it if you can pick up a cheap copy.

>Is such a machine possible?

Yes, it's called a molecular assembler. It's the holy grail of nanotechnology.

Eric Drexler (the guy who popularized the idea in the 80s and 90s) has a new book on this subject, titled Radical Abundance. You should check it out.

Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge and the Management of California's Natural Resources

Plowman's Folly

The Humane Gardener: Nurturing a Backyard Habitat for Wildlife

Garden Revolution: How Our Landscapes Can Be a Source of Environmental Change

A Short History of Nearly Everything

The Hole In The Universe

Universe on a T-Shirt

Light Years

Before The Big Bang

Why Does e=mc^2? (and why should we care?)

Your Inner Fish (about evolution)

And just because it was one of my first pop science books, I'll add The Telescope. Which is of course, about telescopes. It's a lot more interesting than it sounds!

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.amazon.com/How-Technology-Works-Things-Work/dp/1465479643&ved=2ahUKEwj_2dHO-9DjAhVnAp0JHbAkAhUQFjAIegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw1LuDALWBRad10fdiK2xS3L

I have this book beside me because I love to learn things. Because I know I can use these things in the future.

If you're into this kind of thought experiment, I would strongly recommend The Knowledge. The premise is almost exactly what you are describing.

I'm reading Drexler's book on radical abundance. He is the guy who came up "nanotechnology" or more precisely APM - atomically precise manufacturing. His claim is the revolution that is coming for physical production is akin to the digital information revolution. I'd give it a read so far it is fascinating.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1610391136

I'm reading Drexler's new book Radical Abundance (2013), it's quite good. Except perhaps for the chapters dedicated to the difference between science and engineering, which i thought were too long.

http://www.amazon.com/Radical-Abundance-Revolution-Nanotechnology-Civilization/dp/1610391136

He counters many of the claims made by his detractors. Explaining how it's often just a case of misunderstanding.

Highly recommend Mark Klein's book, "Wiring up the Big Brother Machine..and fighting it." Terrific book in which he talks about his experience with the NSA, AT&T and the EFF.
http://www.amazon.com/Wiring-Big-Brother-Machine-Fighting/dp/1439229961/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1300667710&sr=8-1

Was it this?

Or was it a reddit post?

Was it a torrent of over 100GB of files/dvds?

Was it a link to a directory about what to do if a pole shift event happened?

I'm curious as to what you were originally referring to.

Anyone interested in this topic might want to check out The Knowledge, by Lewis Dartnell: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/159420523X

There's http://www.amazon.com/The-Knowledge-Rebuild-World-Scratch/dp/159420523X/ which is probably not going to do a lot of good if you don't already know or have done most of this.

Knowledge is preserved--population is not. It would take some time, and if we were smart about it, population would be capped somehow. IDK how.

As for rebuilding, this book might be useful to own. I plan to buy my copy soon. As a teacher at the end of the summer/beginning of the school year, I'm not quite broke, but close. Two weeks to payday 1 of the new school year. Yeehaw!

It is from the book "engines of creation" by Eric Drexler. Very worthwhile reading. A lot of what you read in science fiction is borrowed directly or indirectly from Drexler. Some of the ideas are older but Drexler put them together in one package.

Some of us read for funsies Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology, but then again, in 1986, I didn't have an xbox and the internet. All I had was imagination and snow both ways uphill.

I haven't read it, but you might want to check out "The Knowledge".

"The Knowledge: How to Rebuild our World From Scratch."

http://www.amazon.com/The-Knowledge-Rebuild-World-Scratch/dp/159420523X/?tag=io9amzn-20&ascsubtag=[referrer|www.google.com[type|link[postId|1566170266[asin|159420523X[authorId|5717795175536518860

Excepting that, an SAS/Army Ranger guide or a college chemistry textbook.

Knowledge is power. If you know how the basic ingredients and building blocks of our modern world work, you can apply that knowledge to your world and improve on it.

Sure, they may call you crazy for collecting massive amounts of bat guano out of caves and mixing it with charcoal, but once you prove what your 'insane' magic can do, you'll be in a position of power, and able to keep on advancing your science. Whether you can, is entirely up to you. Valar morghulis.

I think you may be referring to this book: The Knowledge: How to Rebuild Our World from Scratch

The Knowledge: How to Rebuild Our World from Scratch https://www.amazon.ca/dp/159420523X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_I43RCbJ5WTTD6

It'd be really meta if it was the other author AMA guy's book. :P

http://www.amazon.com/The-Knowledge-Rebuild-World-Scratch/dp/159420523X

> I don't think Drexler really gets this.

I assure you he does. Read his new book, Radical Abundance.

Radical Abundance: How a Revolution in Nanotechnology Will Change Civilization

Eric Drexler's Engines of Creation, which is mentioned, is a jaw dropping book about what could be possible when this technology develops.

The biggest hurdle is advanced mechanosynthesis. Unfortunately progress on mechanosynthesis beyond the basic 2003 proof of concept mentioned has been disappointing so far. It will be a revolution of revolutions when we get it.

You can learn about Drexler's explanation of what Robert is basing his predictions off of in Engines of Creation, or his newer book Radical Abundance. Additionally, some way less digestible stuff can be found on Robert Freitas' website. I think this video is the only thing I've really understood when it comes to his work and findings. Ray Kurzweil is also very accessible but a lot of people are skeptical about him because of things unrelated to his rational predictions.

Here's a back-and-forth between Drexler and Richard Smalley, an accomplished chemist who criticises Drexler's vision of nanotechnology. I find it important to understand the criticism lobbied against nanotechnology, and in my opinion the criticism from Smalley is paper thin. He is constantly conceding to Drexler until he has to end his last response with some nonsense about children being afraid of what he's saying. I haven't come across a truly substantial argument against the possibility of manipulating matter at the scale Drexler describes with nanofactories and fleets of medical nanobots, but I hope whatever criticism that is helps the technology become more substantial in our lives.