>>105670807 (OP)
>>105670831
>tech nerds with a complete misunderstanding of history
Technology and "science" (though I'm also referring to pre-scientific method rational thought like philosophy) have been marching forward since the beginning of permanent human settlements.
The reason it appears "slow" during much of history, is that practical outcomes from this work require capital investments. These capital investments were built up much more slowly until we reached a critical mass of human productivity. Economics is as much a dependency for technology as the knowledge.
Take agriculture. People were discovering new ways to organize agriculture all throughout history. But almost every time it brings new capital requirements. Like steppe farming, you need to spend decades or generations actually assembling the steppe walls. Or the metal plow, you need a metallurgy industry to make the plows, and you need animal husbandry to provide the power required to move heavier, metal farm equipment.
There are a handful of truly revolutionary, knowledge-only moments in technology (e.g. it took stupidly long for us to realize how to make horse saddles, let alone horse yokes). But almost everything is the march of technology and the economy hand-in-hand.
And when the economy starts to stagnate, well, what do you think happens with technology?
