Preventing Technological Progression












4














Normally, technology in numerous fields will advance due to breakthroughs driven by a need for something like more efficient weapons or farming. How can I explain a civilization being "technologically stagnant" and having themselves stuck with technology found around the time ancient Rome existed (600 BC). I have theorized that they can't advance to using electricity due to solar flares constantly bombarding the planet, although I don't know if this is plausible. Also the world they live on is an Earth analog, although it has no fossil fuels present.










share|improve this question






















  • (1) While Rome did indeed exist in 600 BCE, it was a small tiny city state ruled by an Etruscan elite, quite unlike what most people think of as "ancient Rome". (2) In our very own history, technology evolved very very slowly from the early days of classical Greece in the 7th or 6th century BCE to the early Middle Ages in the 8th to 10th century CE. Aren't 14 to 17 centuries enough for a story, no matter how epic?
    – AlexP
    4 hours ago












  • @AlexP I want to keep the civilization in an indefinite state of technological stagnance.
    – Thalassan
    3 hours ago
















4














Normally, technology in numerous fields will advance due to breakthroughs driven by a need for something like more efficient weapons or farming. How can I explain a civilization being "technologically stagnant" and having themselves stuck with technology found around the time ancient Rome existed (600 BC). I have theorized that they can't advance to using electricity due to solar flares constantly bombarding the planet, although I don't know if this is plausible. Also the world they live on is an Earth analog, although it has no fossil fuels present.










share|improve this question






















  • (1) While Rome did indeed exist in 600 BCE, it was a small tiny city state ruled by an Etruscan elite, quite unlike what most people think of as "ancient Rome". (2) In our very own history, technology evolved very very slowly from the early days of classical Greece in the 7th or 6th century BCE to the early Middle Ages in the 8th to 10th century CE. Aren't 14 to 17 centuries enough for a story, no matter how epic?
    – AlexP
    4 hours ago












  • @AlexP I want to keep the civilization in an indefinite state of technological stagnance.
    – Thalassan
    3 hours ago














4












4








4







Normally, technology in numerous fields will advance due to breakthroughs driven by a need for something like more efficient weapons or farming. How can I explain a civilization being "technologically stagnant" and having themselves stuck with technology found around the time ancient Rome existed (600 BC). I have theorized that they can't advance to using electricity due to solar flares constantly bombarding the planet, although I don't know if this is plausible. Also the world they live on is an Earth analog, although it has no fossil fuels present.










share|improve this question













Normally, technology in numerous fields will advance due to breakthroughs driven by a need for something like more efficient weapons or farming. How can I explain a civilization being "technologically stagnant" and having themselves stuck with technology found around the time ancient Rome existed (600 BC). I have theorized that they can't advance to using electricity due to solar flares constantly bombarding the planet, although I don't know if this is plausible. Also the world they live on is an Earth analog, although it has no fossil fuels present.







technological-development civilization






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 4 hours ago









ThalassanThalassan

652110




652110












  • (1) While Rome did indeed exist in 600 BCE, it was a small tiny city state ruled by an Etruscan elite, quite unlike what most people think of as "ancient Rome". (2) In our very own history, technology evolved very very slowly from the early days of classical Greece in the 7th or 6th century BCE to the early Middle Ages in the 8th to 10th century CE. Aren't 14 to 17 centuries enough for a story, no matter how epic?
    – AlexP
    4 hours ago












  • @AlexP I want to keep the civilization in an indefinite state of technological stagnance.
    – Thalassan
    3 hours ago


















  • (1) While Rome did indeed exist in 600 BCE, it was a small tiny city state ruled by an Etruscan elite, quite unlike what most people think of as "ancient Rome". (2) In our very own history, technology evolved very very slowly from the early days of classical Greece in the 7th or 6th century BCE to the early Middle Ages in the 8th to 10th century CE. Aren't 14 to 17 centuries enough for a story, no matter how epic?
    – AlexP
    4 hours ago












  • @AlexP I want to keep the civilization in an indefinite state of technological stagnance.
    – Thalassan
    3 hours ago
















(1) While Rome did indeed exist in 600 BCE, it was a small tiny city state ruled by an Etruscan elite, quite unlike what most people think of as "ancient Rome". (2) In our very own history, technology evolved very very slowly from the early days of classical Greece in the 7th or 6th century BCE to the early Middle Ages in the 8th to 10th century CE. Aren't 14 to 17 centuries enough for a story, no matter how epic?
– AlexP
4 hours ago






(1) While Rome did indeed exist in 600 BCE, it was a small tiny city state ruled by an Etruscan elite, quite unlike what most people think of as "ancient Rome". (2) In our very own history, technology evolved very very slowly from the early days of classical Greece in the 7th or 6th century BCE to the early Middle Ages in the 8th to 10th century CE. Aren't 14 to 17 centuries enough for a story, no matter how epic?
– AlexP
4 hours ago














@AlexP I want to keep the civilization in an indefinite state of technological stagnance.
– Thalassan
3 hours ago




@AlexP I want to keep the civilization in an indefinite state of technological stagnance.
– Thalassan
3 hours ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















4














You've pretty much answered your own question insofar as if there is no need for technological advancement, there won't be any.



If your farms are producing all the food you need and the climate is consistent and temperate all year around, there are no barren areas, no strategic points of coastlines or ports that are envied by the rulers of opposing nations, no resource shortfalls...



...you get the picture...



Then there's no need to develop anything like better weapons, ploughs, or technology in general. Putting this another way, there is no reason to advance if your life is fine as it is.



This in point of fact leads to an interesting anthropological theory I once heard that said that technological advancement only happens in cold climates. The reason was that the cold made life uncomfortable, and provided a forced scarcity of food over a winter period. This meant that people strived to find ways to make their lives more comfortable and as such, developed and refined new ways of doing things and new tools to do them with.



Regardless of that theory, if you look at the relative technological level of European explorers and African tribes in the 18th and 19th centuries, it is clear that Europeans with their harsh winters and relatively scarce resources had advanced more than the African tribes with their temperate climates and a bountiful and relatively constant food supply.



So; make your civilisation relatively happy and content, and advancement won't be as fast as if they're struggling and uncomfortable.






share|improve this answer





















  • “necessity is the mother of invention”
    – Ed Marty
    1 hour ago










  • This answer ignores the single most important factor in all technological progress: human curiosity.
    – Ian Kemp
    19 mins ago












  • As for anthropogenics: Africa is a huge continent, Europe is not. Conflicts in Africa were often resolved by one of the parties simply moving elsewhere, whereas that wasn't an option in Europe. So there was more war, and more unavoidable war, in Europe - and war drives innovation out of necessity.
    – Ian Kemp
    11 mins ago



















2














I have a few thoughts on this based on groups on some historical context (and their modern philosophical descendants):




  1. Groups which shun technology for religious reasons

  2. Groups which cut themselves off from the outside world due to fear

  3. Groups which fear technology itself and were it will take us in the future


Amish - religious angle



The Amish have definitely hit a stopping point when it comes to technological advancement. They've chosen to live simply in order to better serve their religion and idea of what it's god would wish. Indeed, this does not only limit technology use but limits the needed education (most stop school at 8th grade) that would be required to engineer new devices/tools.




Isolation or Fear of outside influence & loss of control



Now technological advancement (or at least economic advancement which can support such) requires periods of peace with access to rich cultures and resources (pgs.7-10). However, when pursuit of that peace causes such a fear of returning to war that governments start to impose heavy restrictions on its populace and actively force out any outside influence (pg.13) to ensure the power base of their own government - it tends to squash any ideas or technological development due to fear it will lead to revolutionary ideas or someone gaining a powerful "weapon"1 the government does not control. It is basically trading growth for stability - at least until someone starts shooting cannons off your shore.



Fear of technology



There have always been those who prefer to live "off the grid" and those who fear what new technology will bring. One can look at Henry David Thoreau's Walden and the transcendentalist movement of the late 1880s and see elements of these ideas. While the Luddites of that same era - actually smashed new technology out of fear it would eliminate their livelihoods.



In modern times, we see the Neo-Luddist who range from the off-the-grid survivalist to calls for moderation - all the way to people still committing violence for fear of what technology will bring.



Or why not all three



It would not be hard to imagine a group which saw these driver-less cars coming (lets say Uber and Taxi drivers) starting a movement against this specific technology, began excluding countries and peoples who supported them. Then being expanded their philosophy to slowly include all technology as evil ("un-natural") and eventually take on religious undertones as justification for their fears.



1: Weapon here could be an actual weapon but also any form of new technology which allows you to generate income, food, or even good will at a rate that allows you to be a threat to those in power (whether you intend to us it or not)






share|improve this answer





















  • Good answer, but I'd like to offer a minor correction around the Amish. I'm no expert on them but my reading indicates that they are not anti-technology, they're just very selective about what technology they use and why. One example of this is the cell phone which Amish people have adopted to a much larger degree than you might think. As I understand it, the Amish reluctance is not with tech, but with the world that uses it.
    – Tim B II
    1 hour ago



















0














Pretty simple solution. Deny access to higher education. Or make it only for an elite group, several countries doing this right now. People can only work with what they actually know or have access to learning.






share|improve this answer





























    0














    All ancient civilisations were essentially shaped by theology, so you simply need to make yours prohibit - and severely punish - technological advancement. I suggest you refer to the Safehold series by David Weber for an excellent example of how this could be achieved.






    share|improve this answer





















      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "579"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f136296%2fpreventing-technological-progression%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes








      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      4














      You've pretty much answered your own question insofar as if there is no need for technological advancement, there won't be any.



      If your farms are producing all the food you need and the climate is consistent and temperate all year around, there are no barren areas, no strategic points of coastlines or ports that are envied by the rulers of opposing nations, no resource shortfalls...



      ...you get the picture...



      Then there's no need to develop anything like better weapons, ploughs, or technology in general. Putting this another way, there is no reason to advance if your life is fine as it is.



      This in point of fact leads to an interesting anthropological theory I once heard that said that technological advancement only happens in cold climates. The reason was that the cold made life uncomfortable, and provided a forced scarcity of food over a winter period. This meant that people strived to find ways to make their lives more comfortable and as such, developed and refined new ways of doing things and new tools to do them with.



      Regardless of that theory, if you look at the relative technological level of European explorers and African tribes in the 18th and 19th centuries, it is clear that Europeans with their harsh winters and relatively scarce resources had advanced more than the African tribes with their temperate climates and a bountiful and relatively constant food supply.



      So; make your civilisation relatively happy and content, and advancement won't be as fast as if they're struggling and uncomfortable.






      share|improve this answer





















      • “necessity is the mother of invention”
        – Ed Marty
        1 hour ago










      • This answer ignores the single most important factor in all technological progress: human curiosity.
        – Ian Kemp
        19 mins ago












      • As for anthropogenics: Africa is a huge continent, Europe is not. Conflicts in Africa were often resolved by one of the parties simply moving elsewhere, whereas that wasn't an option in Europe. So there was more war, and more unavoidable war, in Europe - and war drives innovation out of necessity.
        – Ian Kemp
        11 mins ago
















      4














      You've pretty much answered your own question insofar as if there is no need for technological advancement, there won't be any.



      If your farms are producing all the food you need and the climate is consistent and temperate all year around, there are no barren areas, no strategic points of coastlines or ports that are envied by the rulers of opposing nations, no resource shortfalls...



      ...you get the picture...



      Then there's no need to develop anything like better weapons, ploughs, or technology in general. Putting this another way, there is no reason to advance if your life is fine as it is.



      This in point of fact leads to an interesting anthropological theory I once heard that said that technological advancement only happens in cold climates. The reason was that the cold made life uncomfortable, and provided a forced scarcity of food over a winter period. This meant that people strived to find ways to make their lives more comfortable and as such, developed and refined new ways of doing things and new tools to do them with.



      Regardless of that theory, if you look at the relative technological level of European explorers and African tribes in the 18th and 19th centuries, it is clear that Europeans with their harsh winters and relatively scarce resources had advanced more than the African tribes with their temperate climates and a bountiful and relatively constant food supply.



      So; make your civilisation relatively happy and content, and advancement won't be as fast as if they're struggling and uncomfortable.






      share|improve this answer





















      • “necessity is the mother of invention”
        – Ed Marty
        1 hour ago










      • This answer ignores the single most important factor in all technological progress: human curiosity.
        – Ian Kemp
        19 mins ago












      • As for anthropogenics: Africa is a huge continent, Europe is not. Conflicts in Africa were often resolved by one of the parties simply moving elsewhere, whereas that wasn't an option in Europe. So there was more war, and more unavoidable war, in Europe - and war drives innovation out of necessity.
        – Ian Kemp
        11 mins ago














      4












      4








      4






      You've pretty much answered your own question insofar as if there is no need for technological advancement, there won't be any.



      If your farms are producing all the food you need and the climate is consistent and temperate all year around, there are no barren areas, no strategic points of coastlines or ports that are envied by the rulers of opposing nations, no resource shortfalls...



      ...you get the picture...



      Then there's no need to develop anything like better weapons, ploughs, or technology in general. Putting this another way, there is no reason to advance if your life is fine as it is.



      This in point of fact leads to an interesting anthropological theory I once heard that said that technological advancement only happens in cold climates. The reason was that the cold made life uncomfortable, and provided a forced scarcity of food over a winter period. This meant that people strived to find ways to make their lives more comfortable and as such, developed and refined new ways of doing things and new tools to do them with.



      Regardless of that theory, if you look at the relative technological level of European explorers and African tribes in the 18th and 19th centuries, it is clear that Europeans with their harsh winters and relatively scarce resources had advanced more than the African tribes with their temperate climates and a bountiful and relatively constant food supply.



      So; make your civilisation relatively happy and content, and advancement won't be as fast as if they're struggling and uncomfortable.






      share|improve this answer












      You've pretty much answered your own question insofar as if there is no need for technological advancement, there won't be any.



      If your farms are producing all the food you need and the climate is consistent and temperate all year around, there are no barren areas, no strategic points of coastlines or ports that are envied by the rulers of opposing nations, no resource shortfalls...



      ...you get the picture...



      Then there's no need to develop anything like better weapons, ploughs, or technology in general. Putting this another way, there is no reason to advance if your life is fine as it is.



      This in point of fact leads to an interesting anthropological theory I once heard that said that technological advancement only happens in cold climates. The reason was that the cold made life uncomfortable, and provided a forced scarcity of food over a winter period. This meant that people strived to find ways to make their lives more comfortable and as such, developed and refined new ways of doing things and new tools to do them with.



      Regardless of that theory, if you look at the relative technological level of European explorers and African tribes in the 18th and 19th centuries, it is clear that Europeans with their harsh winters and relatively scarce resources had advanced more than the African tribes with their temperate climates and a bountiful and relatively constant food supply.



      So; make your civilisation relatively happy and content, and advancement won't be as fast as if they're struggling and uncomfortable.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered 3 hours ago









      Tim B IITim B II

      25.8k656109




      25.8k656109












      • “necessity is the mother of invention”
        – Ed Marty
        1 hour ago










      • This answer ignores the single most important factor in all technological progress: human curiosity.
        – Ian Kemp
        19 mins ago












      • As for anthropogenics: Africa is a huge continent, Europe is not. Conflicts in Africa were often resolved by one of the parties simply moving elsewhere, whereas that wasn't an option in Europe. So there was more war, and more unavoidable war, in Europe - and war drives innovation out of necessity.
        – Ian Kemp
        11 mins ago


















      • “necessity is the mother of invention”
        – Ed Marty
        1 hour ago










      • This answer ignores the single most important factor in all technological progress: human curiosity.
        – Ian Kemp
        19 mins ago












      • As for anthropogenics: Africa is a huge continent, Europe is not. Conflicts in Africa were often resolved by one of the parties simply moving elsewhere, whereas that wasn't an option in Europe. So there was more war, and more unavoidable war, in Europe - and war drives innovation out of necessity.
        – Ian Kemp
        11 mins ago
















      “necessity is the mother of invention”
      – Ed Marty
      1 hour ago




      “necessity is the mother of invention”
      – Ed Marty
      1 hour ago












      This answer ignores the single most important factor in all technological progress: human curiosity.
      – Ian Kemp
      19 mins ago






      This answer ignores the single most important factor in all technological progress: human curiosity.
      – Ian Kemp
      19 mins ago














      As for anthropogenics: Africa is a huge continent, Europe is not. Conflicts in Africa were often resolved by one of the parties simply moving elsewhere, whereas that wasn't an option in Europe. So there was more war, and more unavoidable war, in Europe - and war drives innovation out of necessity.
      – Ian Kemp
      11 mins ago




      As for anthropogenics: Africa is a huge continent, Europe is not. Conflicts in Africa were often resolved by one of the parties simply moving elsewhere, whereas that wasn't an option in Europe. So there was more war, and more unavoidable war, in Europe - and war drives innovation out of necessity.
      – Ian Kemp
      11 mins ago











      2














      I have a few thoughts on this based on groups on some historical context (and their modern philosophical descendants):




      1. Groups which shun technology for religious reasons

      2. Groups which cut themselves off from the outside world due to fear

      3. Groups which fear technology itself and were it will take us in the future


      Amish - religious angle



      The Amish have definitely hit a stopping point when it comes to technological advancement. They've chosen to live simply in order to better serve their religion and idea of what it's god would wish. Indeed, this does not only limit technology use but limits the needed education (most stop school at 8th grade) that would be required to engineer new devices/tools.




      Isolation or Fear of outside influence & loss of control



      Now technological advancement (or at least economic advancement which can support such) requires periods of peace with access to rich cultures and resources (pgs.7-10). However, when pursuit of that peace causes such a fear of returning to war that governments start to impose heavy restrictions on its populace and actively force out any outside influence (pg.13) to ensure the power base of their own government - it tends to squash any ideas or technological development due to fear it will lead to revolutionary ideas or someone gaining a powerful "weapon"1 the government does not control. It is basically trading growth for stability - at least until someone starts shooting cannons off your shore.



      Fear of technology



      There have always been those who prefer to live "off the grid" and those who fear what new technology will bring. One can look at Henry David Thoreau's Walden and the transcendentalist movement of the late 1880s and see elements of these ideas. While the Luddites of that same era - actually smashed new technology out of fear it would eliminate their livelihoods.



      In modern times, we see the Neo-Luddist who range from the off-the-grid survivalist to calls for moderation - all the way to people still committing violence for fear of what technology will bring.



      Or why not all three



      It would not be hard to imagine a group which saw these driver-less cars coming (lets say Uber and Taxi drivers) starting a movement against this specific technology, began excluding countries and peoples who supported them. Then being expanded their philosophy to slowly include all technology as evil ("un-natural") and eventually take on religious undertones as justification for their fears.



      1: Weapon here could be an actual weapon but also any form of new technology which allows you to generate income, food, or even good will at a rate that allows you to be a threat to those in power (whether you intend to us it or not)






      share|improve this answer





















      • Good answer, but I'd like to offer a minor correction around the Amish. I'm no expert on them but my reading indicates that they are not anti-technology, they're just very selective about what technology they use and why. One example of this is the cell phone which Amish people have adopted to a much larger degree than you might think. As I understand it, the Amish reluctance is not with tech, but with the world that uses it.
        – Tim B II
        1 hour ago
















      2














      I have a few thoughts on this based on groups on some historical context (and their modern philosophical descendants):




      1. Groups which shun technology for religious reasons

      2. Groups which cut themselves off from the outside world due to fear

      3. Groups which fear technology itself and were it will take us in the future


      Amish - religious angle



      The Amish have definitely hit a stopping point when it comes to technological advancement. They've chosen to live simply in order to better serve their religion and idea of what it's god would wish. Indeed, this does not only limit technology use but limits the needed education (most stop school at 8th grade) that would be required to engineer new devices/tools.




      Isolation or Fear of outside influence & loss of control



      Now technological advancement (or at least economic advancement which can support such) requires periods of peace with access to rich cultures and resources (pgs.7-10). However, when pursuit of that peace causes such a fear of returning to war that governments start to impose heavy restrictions on its populace and actively force out any outside influence (pg.13) to ensure the power base of their own government - it tends to squash any ideas or technological development due to fear it will lead to revolutionary ideas or someone gaining a powerful "weapon"1 the government does not control. It is basically trading growth for stability - at least until someone starts shooting cannons off your shore.



      Fear of technology



      There have always been those who prefer to live "off the grid" and those who fear what new technology will bring. One can look at Henry David Thoreau's Walden and the transcendentalist movement of the late 1880s and see elements of these ideas. While the Luddites of that same era - actually smashed new technology out of fear it would eliminate their livelihoods.



      In modern times, we see the Neo-Luddist who range from the off-the-grid survivalist to calls for moderation - all the way to people still committing violence for fear of what technology will bring.



      Or why not all three



      It would not be hard to imagine a group which saw these driver-less cars coming (lets say Uber and Taxi drivers) starting a movement against this specific technology, began excluding countries and peoples who supported them. Then being expanded their philosophy to slowly include all technology as evil ("un-natural") and eventually take on religious undertones as justification for their fears.



      1: Weapon here could be an actual weapon but also any form of new technology which allows you to generate income, food, or even good will at a rate that allows you to be a threat to those in power (whether you intend to us it or not)






      share|improve this answer





















      • Good answer, but I'd like to offer a minor correction around the Amish. I'm no expert on them but my reading indicates that they are not anti-technology, they're just very selective about what technology they use and why. One example of this is the cell phone which Amish people have adopted to a much larger degree than you might think. As I understand it, the Amish reluctance is not with tech, but with the world that uses it.
        – Tim B II
        1 hour ago














      2












      2








      2






      I have a few thoughts on this based on groups on some historical context (and their modern philosophical descendants):




      1. Groups which shun technology for religious reasons

      2. Groups which cut themselves off from the outside world due to fear

      3. Groups which fear technology itself and were it will take us in the future


      Amish - religious angle



      The Amish have definitely hit a stopping point when it comes to technological advancement. They've chosen to live simply in order to better serve their religion and idea of what it's god would wish. Indeed, this does not only limit technology use but limits the needed education (most stop school at 8th grade) that would be required to engineer new devices/tools.




      Isolation or Fear of outside influence & loss of control



      Now technological advancement (or at least economic advancement which can support such) requires periods of peace with access to rich cultures and resources (pgs.7-10). However, when pursuit of that peace causes such a fear of returning to war that governments start to impose heavy restrictions on its populace and actively force out any outside influence (pg.13) to ensure the power base of their own government - it tends to squash any ideas or technological development due to fear it will lead to revolutionary ideas or someone gaining a powerful "weapon"1 the government does not control. It is basically trading growth for stability - at least until someone starts shooting cannons off your shore.



      Fear of technology



      There have always been those who prefer to live "off the grid" and those who fear what new technology will bring. One can look at Henry David Thoreau's Walden and the transcendentalist movement of the late 1880s and see elements of these ideas. While the Luddites of that same era - actually smashed new technology out of fear it would eliminate their livelihoods.



      In modern times, we see the Neo-Luddist who range from the off-the-grid survivalist to calls for moderation - all the way to people still committing violence for fear of what technology will bring.



      Or why not all three



      It would not be hard to imagine a group which saw these driver-less cars coming (lets say Uber and Taxi drivers) starting a movement against this specific technology, began excluding countries and peoples who supported them. Then being expanded their philosophy to slowly include all technology as evil ("un-natural") and eventually take on religious undertones as justification for their fears.



      1: Weapon here could be an actual weapon but also any form of new technology which allows you to generate income, food, or even good will at a rate that allows you to be a threat to those in power (whether you intend to us it or not)






      share|improve this answer












      I have a few thoughts on this based on groups on some historical context (and their modern philosophical descendants):




      1. Groups which shun technology for religious reasons

      2. Groups which cut themselves off from the outside world due to fear

      3. Groups which fear technology itself and were it will take us in the future


      Amish - religious angle



      The Amish have definitely hit a stopping point when it comes to technological advancement. They've chosen to live simply in order to better serve their religion and idea of what it's god would wish. Indeed, this does not only limit technology use but limits the needed education (most stop school at 8th grade) that would be required to engineer new devices/tools.




      Isolation or Fear of outside influence & loss of control



      Now technological advancement (or at least economic advancement which can support such) requires periods of peace with access to rich cultures and resources (pgs.7-10). However, when pursuit of that peace causes such a fear of returning to war that governments start to impose heavy restrictions on its populace and actively force out any outside influence (pg.13) to ensure the power base of their own government - it tends to squash any ideas or technological development due to fear it will lead to revolutionary ideas or someone gaining a powerful "weapon"1 the government does not control. It is basically trading growth for stability - at least until someone starts shooting cannons off your shore.



      Fear of technology



      There have always been those who prefer to live "off the grid" and those who fear what new technology will bring. One can look at Henry David Thoreau's Walden and the transcendentalist movement of the late 1880s and see elements of these ideas. While the Luddites of that same era - actually smashed new technology out of fear it would eliminate their livelihoods.



      In modern times, we see the Neo-Luddist who range from the off-the-grid survivalist to calls for moderation - all the way to people still committing violence for fear of what technology will bring.



      Or why not all three



      It would not be hard to imagine a group which saw these driver-less cars coming (lets say Uber and Taxi drivers) starting a movement against this specific technology, began excluding countries and peoples who supported them. Then being expanded their philosophy to slowly include all technology as evil ("un-natural") and eventually take on religious undertones as justification for their fears.



      1: Weapon here could be an actual weapon but also any form of new technology which allows you to generate income, food, or even good will at a rate that allows you to be a threat to those in power (whether you intend to us it or not)







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered 2 hours ago









      JGreenwellJGreenwell

      1,154214




      1,154214












      • Good answer, but I'd like to offer a minor correction around the Amish. I'm no expert on them but my reading indicates that they are not anti-technology, they're just very selective about what technology they use and why. One example of this is the cell phone which Amish people have adopted to a much larger degree than you might think. As I understand it, the Amish reluctance is not with tech, but with the world that uses it.
        – Tim B II
        1 hour ago


















      • Good answer, but I'd like to offer a minor correction around the Amish. I'm no expert on them but my reading indicates that they are not anti-technology, they're just very selective about what technology they use and why. One example of this is the cell phone which Amish people have adopted to a much larger degree than you might think. As I understand it, the Amish reluctance is not with tech, but with the world that uses it.
        – Tim B II
        1 hour ago
















      Good answer, but I'd like to offer a minor correction around the Amish. I'm no expert on them but my reading indicates that they are not anti-technology, they're just very selective about what technology they use and why. One example of this is the cell phone which Amish people have adopted to a much larger degree than you might think. As I understand it, the Amish reluctance is not with tech, but with the world that uses it.
      – Tim B II
      1 hour ago




      Good answer, but I'd like to offer a minor correction around the Amish. I'm no expert on them but my reading indicates that they are not anti-technology, they're just very selective about what technology they use and why. One example of this is the cell phone which Amish people have adopted to a much larger degree than you might think. As I understand it, the Amish reluctance is not with tech, but with the world that uses it.
      – Tim B II
      1 hour ago











      0














      Pretty simple solution. Deny access to higher education. Or make it only for an elite group, several countries doing this right now. People can only work with what they actually know or have access to learning.






      share|improve this answer


























        0














        Pretty simple solution. Deny access to higher education. Or make it only for an elite group, several countries doing this right now. People can only work with what they actually know or have access to learning.






        share|improve this answer
























          0












          0








          0






          Pretty simple solution. Deny access to higher education. Or make it only for an elite group, several countries doing this right now. People can only work with what they actually know or have access to learning.






          share|improve this answer












          Pretty simple solution. Deny access to higher education. Or make it only for an elite group, several countries doing this right now. People can only work with what they actually know or have access to learning.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 2 hours ago









          KilisiKilisi

          12.7k12258




          12.7k12258























              0














              All ancient civilisations were essentially shaped by theology, so you simply need to make yours prohibit - and severely punish - technological advancement. I suggest you refer to the Safehold series by David Weber for an excellent example of how this could be achieved.






              share|improve this answer


























                0














                All ancient civilisations were essentially shaped by theology, so you simply need to make yours prohibit - and severely punish - technological advancement. I suggest you refer to the Safehold series by David Weber for an excellent example of how this could be achieved.






                share|improve this answer
























                  0












                  0








                  0






                  All ancient civilisations were essentially shaped by theology, so you simply need to make yours prohibit - and severely punish - technological advancement. I suggest you refer to the Safehold series by David Weber for an excellent example of how this could be achieved.






                  share|improve this answer












                  All ancient civilisations were essentially shaped by theology, so you simply need to make yours prohibit - and severely punish - technological advancement. I suggest you refer to the Safehold series by David Weber for an excellent example of how this could be achieved.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 27 mins ago









                  Ian KempIan Kemp

                  325211




                  325211






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f136296%2fpreventing-technological-progression%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Contact image not getting when fetch all contact list from iPhone by CNContact

                      count number of partitions of a set with n elements into k subsets

                      A CLEAN and SIMPLE way to add appendices to Table of Contents and bookmarks