There’s a world of difference between a kitchen and an Egyptian pyramid. If the kitchen must have “all modern appliances therein” (a new condition not originally stipulated), then I can imagine that the fridge-freezer would be difficult to do (however, an Einstein-Szilard fridge would be possible), but the rest is feasible. First, it would be necessary to make some stone tools. This would take some weeks. Then to source the wood or bamboo that will be used for the tables, cupboards, shelves, and worktops would take some more weeks. Building these items would take a few months. Ceramic pots and plates could be made, after a potter’s wheel has been made. This is a project of weeks or months, depending on ambition. A stone or ceramic sink could be made. A smart, Aga-type cooker could be made, constructed of fired bricks. If copper can be found, copper pots and other utensils can be made. Probably, the most time consuming part of that task would be the mining and smelting of the copper, but people in the early Bronze Age were able to do this armed with nothing more than stone hammers and small bonfires, so Robinson Crusoe should be able to do it, too. If there’s enough copper, an electric generator might become feasible. If there’s iron, Mr Crusoe will be able to use it for nails, which will make the carpentry easier. He could then go on to make iron or steel utensils and taps for the sink.
In all, the project might take Crusoe and Friday several years, but need not take a lifetime.
I have only a rudimentary grasp of auto mechanics, and no foundry skills at all. So, between me and the aborigines, we would probably fail, but if you had a skilled engineer in charge, and a dozen willing aborigines who have metalworking and carpentry skills, a basic car could be built in a matter of months.
Indeed, we do not agree on the basics. Scarcity is a relative term, and for Robinson Crusoe, time is not scarce relative to the things he needs it for.
Mortality does not by itself make time scarce, unless you have things to do which use up the time available.
No, because not everybody is Robinson Crusoe. Most people have demands on their time. Robinson Crusoe on his desert island does not.
To the wealth of humanity at large, technology is by far the most important limiting factor. To individuals, not necessarily.
There’s a profound difference between (a) “us” (humanity considered collectively) knowing how to build, say, a jet engine with the means available to “us” (humanity considered collectively), and (b) my personally knowing how to build such a thing with the means available to me.
(a) is technology, and has a profound effect on the wealth of the world. (b) is personal expertise, and although personal expertise does have a profound effect on individual wealth, the existence of a particular technology does not necessarily affect the wealth of a particular individual.
Individuals have goals. Time stands between individuals and their acheivement of these goals, as such it is scarce.
Then why do the people who make top quality clothes not wear them? Why do those who work in factories making top quality cars, not drive around in them?
If this has already been discussed then I apologize; I didn’t want to go back through every post.
How do you reconcile the examples of third world countries in Africa, South America, etc? They certainly have the technology at they’re fingertips. Various medicines, ways to construct machines, etc. Shouldn’t they be producing at similar levels to any developed country?
I agree that goals make time scarce. But what happens to your goals when you find yourself stuck on a desert island with no apparent prospect of rescue? All your former goals vanish, because there is no longer any prospect of their attainment. Meanwhile, the goal of mere survival takes up only a small part of the time available. Therefore, you have lots of time on your hands, and you are faced with the challenge of finding new goals that will put the time to use. Time for most of us is scarce, but time for Robinson Crusoe is not.
I fear you have not quite caught the thrust of my argument. Technology affects the average wealth of the population, but it is not the case that any particular technology necessarily affects the wealth of any particular individual - or, for that matter, any particular subgroup within a population. The technology that enables “top quality cars” - and cars in general - to be made and driven contributes to the wealth of the world, regardless of whether or not there are some people too poor to acquire a car for themselves. Also, the fact that the world has the technologies of mass production, the internal combustion engine, petroleum refining, rolling sheet steel, smelting aluminium, and so on, does not imply that any particular individual possesses any of those technologies. The typical car factory worker does not possess the technology to make a car or make its fuel (at least, not from scratch).
You are entirely wrong. If you really do believe survival to be so easy then do tell me why the vast majority of the worlds population seems to find it so difficult. That is, of course, they find it difficult with the help of the division of labour and some stock of capital goods. Without either of those survival would be close to impossible.
What’s more you are missing the point. The moment any individual has a goal, time becomes scarce.
You’re missing the point of mine. If, technology is all that is required, then surely, an individual who posseses this knowledge will be able to use it to acheive their own ends. This is empirically not the case. After all, you don’t see all those Indonesians wearing Nike shoes now do you?
They don’t really have the technology at their fingertips. The technology exists, but it is very hard to get hold of unless you are rich enough to buy it from those who already possess it, which usually means the big industrial corporations, or clever enough to steal it from them. If you try to acquire it independently, it is likely that it will be a few decades before your technology products can be competitive with those of the global industrial leaders – even longer if you don’t have a substantial cadre of highly trained scientists and engineers, decent funding, and a stable commitment to R&D.
When you live on a fertile, subtropical island with a population of one person per several square miles, survival is easy. Most people do not live in such an envronment. Rather, they live in an environment where there are hundreds, or even thousands, of people per square mile. They can’t just pluck their food from where it lies, but must prove they have a legitimate claim to it, before someone else does.
Depends on how time-consuming the goal is. The goal of survival on a desert island takes up very little time. Therefore, if a person on such an island should decide they want as a matter of priority to build a modern kitchen, they can dedicate full-time hours to that goal, which gives them a realistic prospect of achieving it within a couple of years or three.
I have not missed that point. I have told you more than once that it is irrelevant.
The argument is about whether technology drives economic growth, not about whether an individual’s knowing how shoes are made is sufficient to ensure that the same individual can afford to wear shoes.
Here’s the deal: if nobody knows how to make shoes (i.e., the technology of making shoes does not exist), it is 100% certain that shoes will not be made by anyone, regardless of how much capital exists. No technology = no shoes. If someone knows how to make shoes, and there is a demand for shoes, then it is almost 100% certain that shoes will soon be made, either by the person who came up with the idea, or someone with whom they have gone into partnership, or someone to whom they have sold or given the idea. This is true of just about anything that can be made, and in just about any environment. It is very seldom ever the case that there is not enough capital for something to be made, if the knowhow exists, and if there is a potential demand for that thing.
Without technology, the entire human genus would be extinct.
Even the most primitive hunter-gatherers depend on some basic technology in order to survive.
A primitive person in a reasonably benign landscape has too few demands on their time, for this to be relevant. Most of their time is pure leisure, and they have very little distraction in the form of ready-made entertainment. Time preference alone therefore cannot explain why primitive people lack technology.
Just came across this site online (I saw this discussion topic so decided to sign up).
This is an interesting disucssion. As somebody who works in the I.T sector I’ve seen plenty of capital pushed into technology that has been an utter flop and done nothing to further the economy.
Also having capital in order to have the time to develop a product and promote it is vital. The less complex the product obviously yhe less time is required for development, so less capital is required overall to get the product complete. Whether this helps the economy to grow though is obviously open to debate.