why did the stone age last so long?

[gattaca]

why did the stone age last so long?

why did the stone age last so long?

3,800,000 years from the start of the stone age to the start of the bronze age.

only 6000 years from the start of the bronze age to the start of the space age.

Yuri Gagarin​

 

[biggles53]

why did the stone age last so long?

why did the stone age last so long?

3,800,000 years from the start of the stone age to the start of the bronze age.

only 6000 years from the start of the bronze age to the start of the space age.

Yuri Gagarin​

Ummmm......where exactly do you get 3.8 million years from...?

 

[High Fidelity]

Pretty sure it was around 50,000 years.

As for how we've come so far in such a short period, well, these ages are defined and separated by particular discoveries and inventions.

Advancement following that is exponential.

 

[gattaca]

Ummmm......where exactly do you get 3.8 million years from...?

In 2010, fossilised animal bones bearing marks from stone tools were found in the Lower Awash Valley in Ethiopia. Discovered by an international team led by Shannon McPherron, at 3.8 million years old they are the oldest evidence of stone tool use ever found anywhere in the world.


Shannon McPherron
Department of Human Evolution
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology

S. McPherron | Homepage

 

[biggles53]

In 2010, fossilised animal bones bearing marks from stone tools were found in the Lower Awash Valley in Ethiopia. Discovered by an international team led by Shannon McPherron, at 3.8 million years old they are the oldest evidence of stone tool use ever found anywhere in the world.


Shannon McPherron
Department of Human Evolution
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology

S. McPherron | Homepage

Aah...I see what you're referring to now.....you're including the activities of pre-human species in your timeline......fine..

Ok, as was explained to you already, the progress of human knowledge has always approximated an exponential function....so why does such a timeline surprise you...?

 

[juvenissun]

why did the stone age last so long?

why did the stone age last so long?

3,800,000 years from the start of the stone age to the start of the bronze age.

only 6000 years from the start of the bronze age to the start of the space age.

...

Only 100 years from primitive airplane to satellite and space ship.

It seems the problem is wider than just the stone age.

 

[DogmaHunter]

...

Only 100 years from primitive airplane to satellite and space ship.

It seems the problem is wider than just the stone age.

There's no problem. Technology advances exponentially throughout history. It only accelerated even more as the scientific method got more refined.

 

[lasthero]

...

Only 100 years from primitive airplane to satellite and space ship.

It seems the problem is wider than just the stone age.

Problem? What problem?

 

[Phenotype]

'The 10,000 Year Explosion: how evolution accelerated human evolution' Gregory Cochrane and Henry Harpending, is the account from genetics, which approach must become widely embraced in the Social Sciences.

'Important and fascinating...the provocative ideas in The 10,000 Year Explosion must be taken seriously by anyone who wants to understand human origins and humanity's future.' Wall street Journal.

Selection for brains has been intensive since settled civilization though brawn does pretty well for itself too.

Another classic to read is 'Before the Dawn, recovering the lost history of our ancestors,' Nicholas Wade. 'Superb science writing,' New Scientist.

Be prepared to be rather shocked, especially for many in this precinct, if they would have what it takes to actually source it and read it, assuming an educable attitude.

 

[[serious]]

3.4 ma Stone tools
0.2 ma Anatomically modern humans
0.05 ma behaviorally modern humans (language, cave paintings, etc.)

The stone age started 3.4 ma, but not among modern humans.

Gattaca is right about the start of the stone age, but biggles et al are right about the time frame we should be asking this question.

Let's fill in the time line a bit:
50,000 ya modern humans using stone tools
10,000 ya agriculture (kinda needed since to do other stuff since you need to be in one place to work metal, and you need food in one place to stay in one place.)
Around this same time, early cold shaping of metal occured.
7000 ya high temperature copper working
5000 ya tin and copper combined into bronze
3000 ya iron age begins
500 ya rise of the printing press kicks off the modern era

Basically, since apparent start of language, we get major advancements ever 2000ish years. Now that we have the ability to print and distribute stuff, the pace picks up quite a bit.

 

[essentialsaltes]

 

[juvenissun]

There's no problem. Technology advances exponentially throughout history. It only accelerated even more as the scientific method got more refined.

That IS the problem.

Take a look of the population curve. Do you see a problem? OK, you don't. That is because you have seen very few such kind of curves. A kid sees a tiger and thinks it is only a big cat.

 

[lasthero]

That IS the problem.

Take a look of the population curve. Do you see a problem? OK, you don't. That is because you have seen very few such kind of curves. A kid sees a tiger and thinks it is only a big cat.

Will you please get to the point?

 

[PsychoSarah]

That IS the problem.

Take a look of the population curve. Do you see a problem? OK, you don't. That is because you have seen very few such kind of curves. A kid sees a tiger and thinks it is only a big cat.

It's a J curve, which will inevitably cause issues population wise. That doesn't translate as being an issue with technology though, in fact we should be happy it is like that since we live at a point where the curve is becoming near vertical as far as technology goes.

 

[biggles53]

It's actually an exponential curve....

 

[PsychoSarah]

It's actually an exponential curve....

The human population curve? Because that is what I was talking about with that. Ugh, I need a sentence in the middle of my last post to break up the two curves better.

 

[biggles53]

Yes, the population curve....it's exponential growth....

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yes, the population curve....it's exponential growth....

Not perfectly so, and it was still described as a J curve when I took AP bio a couple years ago.

 

[Armoured]

...

Only 100 years from primitive airplane to satellite and space ship.

It seems the problem is wider than just the stone age.

What's the problem? Technological advance is inherently iterative, and requires a significant base population to occur. Add to this that technology generally only progresses when their are significantly favourable conditions (i.e. better than subsistence level resources, long term security) it makes perfect sense to me. Technological advance follows the exponential of population growth pretty closely, as you'd expect.

 

[Armoured]

Not perfectly so, and it was still described as a J curve when I took AP bio a couple years ago.

My lecturers described it as "the hockey stick", but "exponential" is close enough for our purposes here.