Fritz Haber, the Veritasium video about him is fascinating (The Man who Killed Milioms and Saved Bilions). He developed the chemical process to efficiently synthesize ammonia, one of the key discoveries that allowed mass adoption of fertilizers and the incredibly rapid growth of the human population in the 20th century (you could say that thanks to him, bilions of people could live and be fed by modern agriculture).
Tragically, he also had a fundamental role in developing chemical weapons during WWI, although he belived their use would reduce the number of deaths as army would simply avoid gassed zones, so who knows if he really intended and believed in the milions of deaths he caused. Ironically, he also helped developing Zyklon B during the rise of nazism (while it was still used as a pesticide), but was quickly forced to flee from Germany because of jewish origin. Later, his last invention would be used to kill even more people.
That's where I first heard about him. Thanks, Spotify. I've learned more about European history from Sabaton and Iron Maiden than I have from school.
Someone else mention Borlaug in this thread, and it shows how no single person necessarily changed anything on their own, and how it's difficult to put all the success as the result of a single person. Borlaug's success was only possible by building on Haber's work, just like Haber worked with Carl Bosch to accomplish what he did, and so on.
Haber therefore revolutionized the entire course of world history. The transformation of Asia and the emergence of China and India as giant, modern 21st-century global economies would never have been possible without Norman Borlaug’s miracle rice strains. But they could never have been grown had Haber not “extracted bread from air,” as his fellow Nobel laureate Max von Laue put it. Borlaug’s “miracle” strains of rice and grain require exceptionally vast inputs of the nitrate fertilizer that is still made from the process Fritz Haber discovered.
These fertilizers also require enormous inputs of oil. This means the dream of an oil-free world can never happen. Even if eternal, ever-renewable free energy could be harnessed from the sun or the cosmic currents of space, a world of seven billion people would still be desperately dependent on oil to make the nitrate fertilizer to grow the crops those people need to survive. The 21st century, like the 20th century, therefore, will still be Fritz Haber’s world.
I never hid my contempt for most organized religions as systems of oppression throughout human history. At the same time I respect peoples individual spirituality, as long as they don't force it on others.
Mostly happens by itself when people get better education. I personally don't do anything in particular about it, since it's not like the most important thing in my life and I happen to already live in rather secular country were organized religions are shrinking.
If that's what you choose to believe, all power to you. If you are gonna try to force your believe down others people throats, that don't be surprised they don't like it.
Not related to my religious beliefs. If I was a non Christian, I'd probably be more militantly pro life if anything as there wouldn't be any concept of heaven
The argument is (though it's certainly not a universally-agreed view) that the fall of Constantinople lead a lot of artists and scientists to flee from the city heading west, along with old texts. Which lead to an increased interest in their knowledge from the west, which is what triggered the Renaissance.
Mehmed II was the Sultan responsible for the invasion of the Eastern Roman Empire and the siege of Constantinople. Hence, he's the guy responsible for it, under this model.
So you don't have ideas in your head about the world that affect how you interact with the world? Might be true for you, but I would say it's not an universal experience. Also I don't say it's juts ideas but ideas are part of our psychology.
You know, from what I've read about it, it wasn't one specific person, and it seems highly likely there were others doing the same thing earlier, but they just couldn't take root for whatever reason.
What do you mean? It's always a specific person or a specific small group that comes up with ideas that are later popularized. Like you can pinpoint evolution theory to a small group of biologists with Darwin and Huxley at their forefront.
So as you might be aware, you've actually chosen an example with 2 simultaneous inventors. Alfred Russel Wallace came up with the same idea at the same time, actually sent Darwin a letter about it before anything was published, and was credited for it. To be fair, they had similar backgrounds, and like you say were a small group. However, there's plenty of inventions of the same thing separated across lots of time and space. Writing was invented several times is fairly isolated civilisations, and Gaussian elimination bears a German man's name, and was thought to be fairly new, but can be found in ancient Chinese works as well.
Who started the enlightenment? Voltaire is often on people's lips, but if it wasn't for the French revolution in his area just a few decades after his death, and which made him a sort of saint, he would have a much smaller profile. Meanwhile, if you go back further there's someone advocating some enlightenment-ish idea recorded from probably every century. Famous names taper off towards the middle ages in Europe, but then so does the record in general, and Arabs like Avicenna or Al-Ma'ari pick up the slack.
But every time writing was invented it had to be invented by a specific dude or a small group of dudes. It did not just come to be out of thin air, someone had to invent it and someone had to popularize it. And so with enlightenment - someone (maybe we don't even know her name) has to come up with an idea and others, whose names we know have to popularize it.
I get that you are saying that it might have been another person (or small group), sure - but in the end it has to be someone.
Okay, well, sure. Even if it's inevitably someone, there is an individual or individuals that it turns out to be in the end. I think it would be a large group for the Enlightenment, even if you remove the forgotten advocates of it, but I guess that's a nitpick. I'm a huge fan of it too, pretty much every other good thing has been a product of it.
On the subject of this way of viewing history, which came up in another place, yeah, it could be depressing, but it depends on how you look at it. Schopenhauer said we're almost powerless and it's awful, Nietzsche said we are and it's great. They were often speaking in more cosmic terms, but I think it applies here. It's also a lot less pressure, right? And, beyond that, I think it just fits the data really well.
I think it's important to note that what I'm talking about is a bit like statistical mechanics in physics (small, unpredictable events adding up to a more predictable whole), and statistical mechanical systems are often complex or non-deterministic. I don't think without heroes human society is actually much diminished; or are our moral responsibilities within it.
But without "heroes" who is doing the actual work? Like again: Darwin, Huxley and couple other dudes actually had to make observations, collect data, come up with an, at that time, absurd sounding idea and defend it against societal pressure. And you don't think that they have influenced history and could be replaced by anyone else? I vehemently disagree that the data fits your perspective.
Sure, if Darwin had been hit by a horse-drawn bus, we'd still have evolution. And probably a YouTube short about "The sailor-naturalist who almost discovered evolution (but died)". It would just be Wallace's theory of natural selection. There you go, one data point.
I was going to bring up some less clear-cut examples, but I guess I should ask what your point is, because I feel like I'm missing something. I think Darwin was a cool guy, but I don't think he was unexpected. Yeah, they did the work, but work is cheap, every peasant in history did work. Why should I care more about Darwin than the people who fed Darwin, and who were themselves (something like) inevitable?
Wait lets back up und make sure we understand each others point:
The way I see your perspective: you say that individual role in history is rather unimportant, we are all just part of some complex process wich leads to an inevitable progress through forces mostly outside individual control. Is it fair representation or did I miss something?
My perspective is: in the end it's individuals/groups who make specific things that contribute to progress, while sometimes the individuals might be replaceable, they sometimes also leave their individual marks on the events or theories they create (Freund vs. Jung for example - if Jung was more influential we might have quite different psychology). And even if they are replaceable, in the end it's still individuals that have to make things happen.
some complex process which leads to an inevitable progress through forces mostly outside individual control.
I actually have no idea where the process is going, and can't rule out the enlightenment as a transitory phase, which scares me more than anything. If you just meant progress as in evolving some way, then yes.
And even if they are replaceable, in the end it’s still individuals that have to make things happen.
And this is where I agree, but don't see the significance. In the end the set of possible outcomes and their probabilities are the same. Is this a free will vs. determinism thing, maybe? Or maybe you're thinking in normative terms, while I'm thinking in in descriptive terms.
(I assume you mean Stalin, unless this is a different guy I don't know about)
So far, yeah. I estimated two centuries for individual actions to wash out, though, and that was just one ago. On the other hand, if it would have lead to some complex chain of events ending in certain MAD, that could take millennia to become a human footnote, and would leave extinctions that may not ever be reversed. The 20th century was kind of a metastable point where everything is amplified.
I hear Trotsky was also pretty unpopular. He was Lenin's chosen heir, so I'm guessing he had a chance, but even if Stalin had died at some point pre-revolution it's possible Zinoviev or someone would have taken his place.
No I actually meant Leon Trotsky, just wrote his name from memory. He wanted more the Cambodian way of communism.
So far, yeah. I estimated two centuries for individual actions to wash out
Even if I would accept that estimation, in those two hundred years the lives of many humans are greatly impacted, which is for me all that matters in the end. Since I like to view history from human point of view this seem pretty relevant. If you take an impartial abstract point of view - than nothing really matters since the universe will disappear anyway at some point. Maybe that's the difference in our perception.
Yeah, Trotsky vs. Stalin. You wrote Lenin, who you probably know was a predecessor to both of those two rivals, and who died of apparent natural causes related to old age shortly after the revolution.
Even if I would accept that estimation, in those two hundred years the lives of many humans are greatly impacted, which is for me all that matters in the end.
Oh absolutely! We're not totally powerless, just nearly. In some ways that's harder, because we still have to try if there are some things we can make better.
In real life, I do activism, and I've been a vegetarian for years. What this has changed is that I focus more on the quiet background side of activism, and I don't stress out about being super ambitious. If I had money, I'd do philanthropy. If I was born into an autocracy, I'd just have to settle for being kind to whoever I come across, and supporting the less-terrible side when, outside of my control, wartime or revolution comes. And sometimes, I also try and contribute to the discussion intellectually.
The same would apply if I had been born Charles Darwin. I'm not Darwin, though, and the only thing I control are my own actions. He's just a part of history, like everyone else in that era. Many argue about the free will of individuals, but large groups definitely have no free will. For example, advertising and political campaigning, major industries, are built on top of that fact.
So many different people had small impacts on humanity, most of it somewhat regional. Most of the heroes I could think of in Western countries will have had a very limited impact on Eastern history, and vice versa. Also, I am very sure nobody had only positive impact.
Another problem: not everybody will rate a certain impact equally as positive.
I'd suggest to remove focus and attention from god- or hero-like figures and shift it towards improvements won by community action.
Dude it's a fun question from the sorts of who is stronger Superman or Goku. But even outside of that - it's hard to deny that some individuals had more impact on the course of our society than others.
Yeah, there's some variance, but I'd argue it's actually pretty small. I'm trying to figure out who I'd choose, but it's hard, because usually there's a lot of redundancy even when it comes to kings and generals, and nothings lasts more than a couple centuries or so on pure momentum. When archeologists excavate a place like Rome, without writing it's hard to even distinguish leaders. Rather, you can see trends smoothly changing over time, usually in response to something obvious like supply chain issues.
You can also see this if you look at the stories of today's great successes, and then compare them to the stories of people they would have started alongside. There was a lot of online stores in 2000, and one was bound to become Amazon. Amazon itself apparently was the first to allow negative book reviews on it's storefront, and that helped it through the lean years. That meeting could easily have gone a different way, and then it would have been someone else.
I gave you a good example in another reply. But we can also go deeper - Mohamed, with his freestyle jam on bible, to this day has rather big influence on society. It's a rather strange and honestly depressing perspective to deny individuals any role in history.
Uh, so administrative question, do we really want to split this across seperate threads? I'm going to suggest you add Mohamed and the futility of existing without individual influence in your response over there (non-federated link, AFAIK Lemmy can't do comments any other way).
I don't know why you are getting downvoted. This is a very valid and interesting point. Durable improvements are systemic, not individual, and the drive to look for heroes leads to nasty places.