Skip to main content

History is bunk

Well, no, history isn't bunk, it's very important, but you have to admire the power of the statement. There certainly are occasions when history gives a wrong steer, and I think I've just heard one. The problem is, that if you try to predict the future based on experience from history, you assume that things will continue in the future the way they did in the past - but this misses out on the way sudden major step changes can (and often do) totally throw the effectiveness of the prediction.

Take one simple example - speed of human travel. Science writer Damien Broderick has apparently cited this as an example of exponential growth. For millions of years we were restricted to walking. Over thousands of years, we got a little faster by using donkeys and horses. Just 200 years ago the steam train arrived, followed by automobiles, prop planes and jets. According to Broderick, “By 1953, not even the Air Force technologists could believe what the trend curves were telling them: that within four years they would have achieved speeds great enough to lift payloads into orbit.”

Despite that disbelief, the curve went on, with Sputnik going into orbit on schedule in 1957, and twelve years later man was on the Moon. The idea of this example is to show how exponential growth can transform things in a shocking way – and it’s a great example up to a point. Yet in its use of carefully selected data it is also extremely misleading.

To start with, the world didn’t end with the introduction of space flight. Bear in mind that as much time has now passed since Sputnik was launched in 1957 as had gone by between the Wright brothers’ first flight and that satellite launch that triggered the space race. Even with linear growth we would by now expect to be crossing the solar system with ease – with exponential growth, we should be hopping to the stars after fifty years has passed. It hasn’t happened. Our space vessels are no quicker than they were in the Apollo days.
Look a little deeper, and things are even worse as far the growth curve goes. Broderick has compared apples with oranges.

His story begins as a description of mass travel speed – the rates that ordinary people can achieve – but ends with specialist travel speed. Very few people have become astronauts. If you stick to the curve of mass travel, something even more remarkable has happened. From the Wright Brothers’ handful of miles an hour we did see immense jumps with the jet plane, and then with the supersonic Concorde at around 1,300 miles an hour. But since Concorde went out of service, our fastest mass travel speed has dropped to less than half its previous value. Not only are we failing to ascend an exponential curve, or even a linear curve, we have actually plummeted backwards, with no real contender in sight to reverse this.

The reason I bring this up now is I've just heard a couple of academics arguing about whether English will continue to be a world language. One, arguing from history, pointed out how quickly 'universal' languages get dropped. But all of history before English has been without the Internet, email and other high speed world communications. I personally think this totally changes the game. Yes, English might be supplanted by another language - but I don't think history is any use here in predicting the outcome, because the situation is so dramatically different. Here, at least, history is bunk.


Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope