Technology & Progression

[Vormaerin]

It's unlikely every field will change with each TL, but communications technology is a huge factor. The main difference between the 1980s and now is internet/digital. We are still using rockets, cars, airplanes, rifles, refrigerators, fossil fuels, etc.

Radio changed things. Internet changed things. Telegraph & Telephones probably felt like a pretty radical change at the time.

 

[swordtart]

So the question then becomes which technologies represent TL paradigm changes. Materials technology? Energy generation?

Fire->lime, cement, a few metals, pottery
Furnace->glass, more metals, ceramics
Blast furnace->industrial revolution

Glass->lenses->microscope/telescope

Muscle power, animal power, wind, water
steam engine->industrial revolution

Static electricity, chemical reaction generated electricity
industrial revolution->mechanical generation of electricity

electricity, chemical reaction ratios, radioactivity, brownian motion->atomic theory

James Burke has a programme back in the day called Connections. Each episode he told the story of how a modern technological marvel (well modern int he 70's) came to be and all the hinges of history flip-flopped to enable it to happen. My biggest take away was that it was all tangled up. An advancement in just one technology generally didn't take until some often completely tangential technology came along and enabled it.

A change in power source is often the thing that makes things easier and therefore cheaper and this usually creates a step change from the normal gradual increment of better or cheaper or faster.

 

[Quint]

One if the issues with Traveller's technology system is the lack of efficiency and progression. As an example, Vacc suits in Traveller rarely get lighter, less expensive, or add additional features. This true of pretty much all components, equipment, and weapons. There is no systematic way to reduce cost, weight, or manufacturing time. There is no benefit to additional capabilities and if there are they are always more expensive.

I do recall in the old days a supplement or article that discussed technological progression of vacc suits, and that may have been DGP. There was even a modular build system for custom vacc suits in CT JTAS.

Should components and equipment get lighter, cost less, or add capabilities. Not just vacc suits as an example, but all technology?

Just one man's opinion, but I thought it would be a neat discussion.

Best regards.

There is IIRC, out of old CT Striker, a table that addresses the costs (at least) of buying lower tech items at a higher tech (and visa versa) - the general idea being that advanced manufacturing (and purchasing in bulk) creates price savings (I think the table could also be used in reverse also, but I may be mixing things up). Similarly in T5 iirc (and maybe in the MgT1 CSC?) there was a factor for "optimized tech" a level or two above the listed TL with slightly reduced costs, weights, etc.

D.

 

[Vormaerin]

Yes, but we aren't generally talking about "advances" because stuff isn't being invented from scratch. Only a handful of worlds in a starfaring setting are going to be "inventing" a technology instead of adopting it or reverse engineering it. People aren't going to be like 'Oh, I invented this cool thing with no application until someone else invents a different thing that predicates on it." The How & why are not generally the problem. It's the economics & politics that are going to be the biggest factors.

Traveller's TL system shouldn't be trying to model some kind of organic advancement system, because there's practically no such thing happening. That TL4 world almost certainly knows the science of fission and fusion, they just don't have it implemented for whatever reason. That might be they can't afford it. It might be they don't want it. It might be some other reason. But unless you've specifically created an isolated world, it isn't because they don't know the science exists.

 

[Sigtrygg]

James Burke has a programme back in the day called Connections. Each episode he told the story of how a modern technological marvel (well modern int he 70's) came to be and all the hinges of history flip-flopped to enable it to happen. My biggest take away was that it was all tangled up. An advancement in just one technology generally didn't take until some often completely tangential technology came along and enabled it.

A change in power source is often the thing that makes things easier and therefore cheaper and this usually creates a step change from the normal gradual increment of better or cheaper or faster.

Great TV show, I have the book that accompanied one of the series (there were three series that I remember). There was a follow up series called the Day the Universe changed which may be more relevant for the concept of technological paradigms and TLs.. I am told there was a new series in 2023 on Curiosity Stream but I have no idea where to find that.

 

[Anstett]

It is a very fun show.

Connections on Curiosity Stream

Connections with James Burke premieres on Curiosity Stream November 9th!

curiositystream.com

 

[MasterGwydion]

Yes, but we aren't generally talking about "advances" because stuff isn't being invented from scratch. Only a handful of worlds in a starfaring setting are going to be "inventing" a technology instead of adopting it or reverse engineering it. People aren't going to be like 'Oh, I invented this cool thing with no application until someone else invents a different thing that predicates on it." The How & why are not generally the problem. It's the economics & politics that are going to be the biggest factors.

Couldn't it just as easily be a representation of what "advances" are in use on a particular world? As opposed to showing what they know, it just shows what they use. In which case every world in the 3rd Imperium has TL-15 knowledge and many have TL-16 knowledge but do not yet have TL-16 advances in standard usage.

I don't really like this interpretation of things though. Otherwise, why would you ever build ships at less than TL-15 or TL-16?

 

[J. L. Brown]

So the question then becomes which technologies represent TL paradigm changes. Materials technology? Energy generation?

Fire->lime, cement, a few metals, pottery
Furnace->glass, more metals, ceramics
Blast furnace->industrial revolution

Glass->lenses->microscope/telescope

Muscle power, animal power, wind, water
steam engine->industrial revolution

Static electricity, chemical reaction generated electricity
industrial revolution->mechanical generation of electricity

electricity, chemical reaction ratios, radioactivity, brownian motion->atomic theory

No; I think each area of technology has a Technology Level; often quite independent of other areas at the same Technology Level. Whether or not your surgeons know about (or use) the Germ Theory of Disease has no impact on how sophisticated your Abacuses or Steam Turbines are.

There might be some cross-pollination; like a basic knowledge of organic chemistry is required to manufacture artificial Anagathics, or the ability to build electromagnets enables the widespread use of telegraphs. But mostly the areas of knowledge are unrelated. If we want to tie these broad categories to the skill system, maybe we can start with the broad Science skills (in JTAS 13 p 68) -- eight broad categories, with each of the 20 'specialties' (or more) representing the areas technology advances in.

The 'Technology Level' of a world is a crude approximation of capabilities across the areas of knowledge; something like an 'average' -- but it is descriptive not prescriptive.

I am also open to the idea of a 'Technology Tree' layout, but I am not prepared to make one.

 

[Condottiere]

Civilization is energy dependent.

And going by cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence server centres, so is technological development.

 

[J. L. Brown]

Civilization is energy dependent.

And going by cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence server centres, so is technological development.

Energy consumption per person is a matter of quality-of-life; it is a consequences of advancing technology, or an enabler, not usually a driver. I think the real driver for technological progression is population -- to a certain degree enabled by communication and computing, but population is the key.

The way you make quick progress in an area is to gather a 'critical mass' of smart, knowledgeable people, and put them in an environment where their work is supported & they can bounce insights off of each other. This takes two key aspects of population -- a sufficient number (high pop) of folks with expertise, in close proximity (high pop density). A 'lone maverick' makes great stories -- but they do so because they are incredibly rare. The real work is done by groups. Ramanujan was brilliant; but working alone in India his ideas would have come to nothing; when he moved to England, his ideas spread and inspired many -- the progress was not lost.

 

[MonsterX]

Economic historians focus on "General Purpose Technologies" (GPTs, because of course there's an acronym)which are technologies that serve as the basis for transforming production processes in many sectors. Different economists have different lists but they always include energy production, communications technologies, and transportation technologies. Certain industrial and agricultural techs tend to be listed as well.

Energy production is partly about overall efficiency but it is also about flexibility in deployability, and the ability to convert the energy into work in different contexts. Being able to deploy it in new ways can facilitate advances in other areas: e.g. transportation advances (e.g. steam engines) - so GPTs relate to each other as well as to less important advances.

Communications technologies are important because they enable production to be split up geographically - e.g. you need trains to bring the coal, but with the telegraph, you can also order the coal brought to you in the right amount for what you need right now. This helps production to be overall more efficient.

Transportation expands markets over bigger areas, allowing bigger factors, allowing specialization and assembly lines and more efficiency through scale.

Other technologies that make the economists' lists of GPTs tend to be those that free up labour - if you have a more efficient plow, you require fewer people to be on the farms to feed everyone so you can send them to the factories.

 

[Condottiere]

At some point you hit the complacency plateau, where most people are just comfortable enough, that the drive to strive is tamped down.

 

[Vormaerin]

Nonsense. Has never happened. No evidence it ever would happen.