korrents
Bret Devereaux

What Bret Devereaux thinks about innovation

@bret-devereaux · 25 positions · 0 changes of mind

Ancient and military historian specialising in the economy of the ancient Mediterranean, who writes the long-form blog A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry on pre-modern economies, logistics and warfare, and on what popular history, film and games get wrong about them.

Bret Devereaux did not write this page.

We collected these quotes from things they published elsewhere, and every quote links to where it was said. They have no account here and have not endorsed this site. Quotes are word for word; the short line under each one is our own restatement, not their wording. Their own site. Is this you? Claim it or ask us to remove it. Or tell us what is wrong here.

3 dated positions, 2022, in their own words. Our reading of what Bret Devereaux has said — not written or endorsed by them.

3 positions so far — this page is not yet offered to search engines.

  1. Our readingAn invention only matters when the principle, a workable design and an economically viable use for it all arrive together; the idea on its own changes nothing.

    design

    Their wordsThe specificity matters here because each innovation in the chain required not merely the discovery of the principle, but also the design and an economically viable use-case to all line up in order to have impact.

    ↗Collections: Why No Roman Industrial Revolution?acoup.blog 2nd of 8 in this piece

  3. Our readingLong-run GDP charts hide what matters: technologies are contingent and path dependent, so the same number can describe economies that work in entirely different ways.

    Their wordsAll of which is why simple graphs of things like ‘global historical GDP’ can be a bit deceptive: there’s a lot of particularity beneath the basic statistics of production because technologies are contingent and path dependent.

    ↗Collections: Why No Roman Industrial Revolution?acoup.blog 4th of 8 in this piece

  5. Our readingThe Industrial Revolution was not inevitable: it needed a set of very specific preconditions that only Britain, at that moment, actually had.

    Their wordsIn my view the key takeaway here is just how contingent the industrial revolution was: the industrial revolution that occured required a number of very specific pre-conditions which were really on true on Great Britain in that period.

    ↗Collections: Why No Roman Industrial Revolution?acoup.blog 7th of 8 in this piece