Why did it take nearly 4,000 years for humans to go from swords,

England has only been around for 1/3 of that time.

>>3186924
America has only been around even less of that time.. What's your point?

>>3186900
idk I guess just of the top of my head that universities, the printing press, the beginning of the first real academic pursuit of the sciences the slow and steady buildup of collective knowledge etc etc

basically there's a lot of these new technological or social improvements coming out and many times they reinforce each other, so you get a sort of exponential effect going on

>>3186900
Because technological progress is exponential, not linear. If it were linear, that would mean none of the new technologies that were developed ever made it so that it was easier to develop subsequent new technologies. Which wouldn't make any sense at all. The whole point of technology is it increases your ability to get things done, and the class of objects covered by "getting things done" includes developing even newer technologies. It's similar to how compound interest works. You not only get interest on your initial investment, you also get interest on the interest, so your returns don't just go up at a linear rate.

>>3186900
upgrade times bro

>>3186900
Humanity had to grind for experience to purchase new upgrades.

File: 1412940224679.jpg (35KB, 177x278px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 177x278px

>>3186900
The rise of organised nation-states, centralised governments and interwoven military-industrial complexes that are incentivised to develop increasingly effective tools of war.