No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 June 2009
A tendency for progress (and change, generally) to accelerate is clearly perceptible in the present epoch and has been commented upon many times. Quantitative additions to population, national income, and wealth, and other measurable indicators come larger by every decade. The number of scientifically trained persons alive in this year is much larger than the sum of all those that lived in previous generations. Revisions of even basic scientific theory occur more often than before, and the lead time between a basic invention and the blueprint for mass production grows shorter and shorter.
1 Postan, M. M., ‘Function and dialectic in economic history’, The Economic History Review, Vol. 14, No. 3 (04 1962), 397–407 (the passages quoted here are on page 402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 Foerster, H. von, Mora, Patricia M., and Amiot, L. W., ‘Doomsday: Friday, 13 November, A.D. 2026’, Science, Vol. 132, No. 3436 (11 4, 1960), 1291–1295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 It is a different matter that progress in many periods may have been constant, or even decelerating, after an initial spurt; and of course there have been many periods of outright decline to offset previous acceleration. The ‘constant’ rate at one level of periodization is then the summation of trends of varying direction and intensity. But as long as the ‘constant’ rate of a subsequent period is higher than the ‘constant’ rate of a preceding one, the basic hypothesis of multi-secular acceleration would be borne out. Obviously, the choice of ‘periods’ would influence the result of any piecemeal analysis.
4 See, e.g., the article by Hafner, E. M., ‘The New Reality in Art and Science’, contributed to this same conference, CSSH, Vol. 11, No. 4 (10 1969), 385–397.Google Scholar
5 Dovring, F., Productivity of Labor in Agricultural Production (University of Illinois, Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 762, Sept. 1967).Google Scholar
6 Febvre, L., Le probléme de l'incroyance au xvie siécle. La religion de Rabelais (Paris: Albin Michel, 1947), pp. 110f: ‘Mais le monde a marché de 1532 á 1538. Et trés vile.…’Google Scholar
7 Lambert, R. J., ’Can you help in the Search for a Wild Relative of Corn ?’ Illinois Research, Fall 1963, p. 5, on Tripsacum dactyhides.Google Scholar
8 Along the same lines one might emit an hypothesis about some of the more recent stages in the genesis of the human species. Much has been written about Neanderthal man and other primitive human forms, all of which are usually supposed to have become extinct as they were overtaken by more advanced cousins. It does not seem to have been noticed that these more evolved human forms might have been the result of mongrelization between more archaic forms. The mongrels might have better characteristics for cultural purposes, but they might also not have been able to survive in the jungle, i.e., before the more primitive ancestors had developed some measure of protective culture.
9 Lewis, W. A., The theory of economic growth (London and Homewood, Ill., 1955)Google Scholar, in the chapter, ‘Is economic growth desirable?’ reprinted in Development and Society, Novack, D. E. and Lekachman, R., eds. (New York, 1964), pp. 10–22.Google Scholar