TWENTY-ONE: IS ACCOMPLISHMENT DECLINING?
There are two main ways to look at human accomplishment trends. One way focuses on the total number of important figures, which increased significantly from 1700 to 1950. The other looks at the rate of accomplishments, especially in the West, which seems to show a decline starting in the 19th century. This is confusing because while the rate in literature dropped, many great works were still produced during that time. To understand these trends, it's important to recognize that a declining rate does not mean fewer significant contributions. Several factors could explain this decline, such as the supply of talent not keeping up with the population and market saturation in the arts and sciences.
Thinking About What a Rate Means for the Arts and Sciences
When the accomplishment rate in literature goes down, it means there are fewer important authors compared to the population. This decrease can show a change in culture, either because fewer people are engaged with good literature or because fewer are producing lasting works. The drop in significant figures often suggests a decline in overall interest in the arts and sciences. However, sometimes this decline can have a positive side, as seen in the early 20th century when talented writers moved to film and television. The decline in scientific work is seen as mostly harmless, while the drop in the arts is viewed more negatively, indicating a potential loss in quality.
How Changes in Rare Events Can Change the Atmosphere
Changes in the rates of rare events, like violent crime, can significantly impact daily life. For example, even though the chances of being a crime victim are very low, shifts in crime rates can transform the atmosphere of a city. In New York, for instance, a drop in violent crime from 1990 to 2000 led to noticeable improvements in the city’s environment, like less graffiti and fewer beggars. This change made people feel safer and altered their behavior, showing how crime rates reflect wider social changes.
Two Ways in Which the Declines Are Understated
The declines seen in the graphs presented are likely understated due to two main reasons. First, there is a tendency to focus on recent accomplishments over older ones, a bias known as epochcentric bias. This means that recent events and achievements are given more attention than they may deserve in the long run. Historical lists, such as those of the "100 Best Novels," have revealed this bias, as many authors from earlier periods are overlooked despite their significant works. For example, a famous list from 1899 included authors who are now largely ignored, highlighting how significance can fade over time.
Second, the number of people who have the opportunity to make notable contributions in arts and sciences has grown more rapidly than the overall population. This means there are more potential achievers today due to factors such as better education and social conditions. Historically, a large part of the population, such as subsistence farmers, had little chance to pursue their talents. Over the centuries, as urbanization and education expanded, more people gained access to the means of achievement. For instance, the number of university students rose significantly in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, outpacing population growth by a large margin in several countries.
These two phenomena suggest that the calculation of accomplishment rates should consider not just the total population but a so-called “de facto population,” which includes those with realistic chances of achieving significant contributions. As a result, the perceived decline in accomplishments in Western history, especially since the Renaissance, is likely even more pronounced when accounting for these biases and demographic changes, further emphasizing the need to be aware of these distortions in historical assessments.
The Nature of the Decline in Science and Technology
There is a debate about whether science and technology have really declined in their achievements during the 19th and 20th centuries. These two hundred years saw major advances that improved people's lives, but measuring significant scientific achievements may not show this accurately. The number of scientists grew faster than the population, yet the rate of important accomplishments seems to have dropped, indicating that something else might be affecting these measurements.
One idea is that the market for scientific discoveries became saturated, meaning there were too many discoveries for the demand. Nonetheless, there were more technical journals and investments in science, suggesting that scientists had more chances than ever before. This evidence points to the idea that the decline in recognized accomplishments is not due to a lack of support or opportunities.
Furthermore, science has shifted to larger teams working together on more complex discoveries. This change might lead to fewer individuals being credited in lists of significant contributors. Many important inventions involve multiple discoveries, which could make it harder to count all these achievements properly.
Lastly, future historians may simplify the number of records for major inventions, which means that the current lists might be too detailed. Overall, while scientific achievements have become more complex, it is unclear whether they are truly underreported or sometimes exaggerated in records.
When an Inventory Misleads
Many scientific inventories highlight numerous discoveries in fields like astronomy, but these often miss the importance of more recent findings. While many discoveries listed were significant at the time, such as identifying moons and comets, they offer little understanding of the solar system today. It’s suggested that the rate of scientific achievements has declined since the mid-1800s. In the late 1960s, a molecular biologist named Gunther Stent argued that science's progress might be nearing its end, a view that gained traction among scientists over the years. He compared scientific exploration to completing a jigsaw puzzle: as more pieces are added, the larger, essential ones have already formed a clear picture, leaving subsequent discoveries less impactful. Although many areas still have unanswered questions, this doesn’t necessarily mean significant new knowledge is waiting to be found. Fields like physics and biology reached their fundamental understandings long ago, and today’s researchers may not have the same opportunities for groundbreaking discoveries that previous generations had. Therefore, in many scientific fields, the pivotal advancements may already be behind us.
The Nature of Decline in the Arts
The decline in significant achievements in the arts began in the late 1600s for visual arts, while Western literature experienced a steep drop starting in the second half of the 19th century. Music also saw a decrease in significant figures from the mid-1700s to the early 1800s and has not recovered since. This raises questions about the reasons behind these declines since the number of people working in the arts has increased much faster than population growth.
The increase in human capital in the arts does not correlate with a rise in significant accomplishments. Despite the United States having a vastly larger population compared to Elizabethan England, the capacity to produce standout artists seems to have limits. It is not just about the sheer number of artists but also the ability of society to recognize and accept their work. As populations grow, markets for outstanding artists may reach saturation points, which means that having more artists does not necessarily result in more recognized talent.
The concept of a saturation point can be observed in the performing arts. For example, in classical music, there is often a small number of recordings by top soloists that dominate the market, regardless of the number of skilled musicians available. The presence of so many excellent violinists doesn't lead to a broader selection of top performances due to market preferences for familiar names. This idea, explained by economists Robert Frank and Philip Cook in "The Winner-Take-All Society," points to conditions where specific talents consistently outperform others, leading to a focus on a limited number of recognized artists.
Several factors contribute to winner-take-all markets. First, there's "cloning," or the ability to economically reproduce performances by top artists. Consumers prefer established names because they are often more familiar and seen as the best options. Additionally, consumers develop habits that make them gravitate toward familiar creators, making it difficult for new artists to break through—even if they might be equally talented. These market dynamics create barriers for new works, and while some new artists emerge, they often follow established trends rather than innovating.
Even though there is growth in the arts and literature, the way significant figures are counted can be misleading. The concept of "greatness fatigue" suggests that as the audience grows, their ability to appreciate and recognize outstanding art may not increase at the same rate. For example, a society with an audience of 400 million may not truly recognize ten times as many great artists as one with a 40 million audience. There’s speculation that, despite a higher population, no greater acknowledgment or recognition for significant work from 1900 to 1950 emerged, indicating a deeper issue of artistic decline rather than merely an underappreciation of new talent.
Some believe that the decline in arts achievements correlates with a broader cultural decline in Western civilization, a theme echoed by several intellectuals since the mid-1800s. They argue that this cultural disintegration, impacted by historical events and social changes, has led to a less favorable environment for producing great art. While the growing middle class and accessibility to the arts opened markets for popular culture, it might have also diluted the focus on producing lasting masterpieces.
In conclusion, the reasons behind the declines in artistic accomplishment appear to be tied to deeper societal and market mechanics rather than simply being artifacts of statistical counting. As the recognition of artistic work becomes more complicated in larger populations, the actual rates of significant accomplishments in the arts may indeed reflect real declines.
There are two main ways to look at human accomplishment trends. One way focuses on the total number of important figures, which increased significantly from 1700 to 1950. The other looks at the rate of accomplishments, especially in the West, which seems to show a decline starting in the 19th century. This is confusing because while the rate in literature dropped, many great works were still produced during that time. To understand these trends, it's important to recognize that a declining rate does not mean fewer significant contributions. Several factors could explain this decline, such as the supply of talent not keeping up with the population and market saturation in the arts and sciences.
Thinking About What a Rate Means for the Arts and Sciences
When the accomplishment rate in literature goes down, it means there are fewer important authors compared to the population. This decrease can show a change in culture, either because fewer people are engaged with good literature or because fewer are producing lasting works. The drop in significant figures often suggests a decline in overall interest in the arts and sciences. However, sometimes this decline can have a positive side, as seen in the early 20th century when talented writers moved to film and television. The decline in scientific work is seen as mostly harmless, while the drop in the arts is viewed more negatively, indicating a potential loss in quality.
How Changes in Rare Events Can Change the Atmosphere
Changes in the rates of rare events, like violent crime, can significantly impact daily life. For example, even though the chances of being a crime victim are very low, shifts in crime rates can transform the atmosphere of a city. In New York, for instance, a drop in violent crime from 1990 to 2000 led to noticeable improvements in the city’s environment, like less graffiti and fewer beggars. This change made people feel safer and altered their behavior, showing how crime rates reflect wider social changes.
Two Ways in Which the Declines Are Understated
The declines seen in the graphs presented are likely understated due to two main reasons. First, there is a tendency to focus on recent accomplishments over older ones, a bias known as epochcentric bias. This means that recent events and achievements are given more attention than they may deserve in the long run. Historical lists, such as those of the "100 Best Novels," have revealed this bias, as many authors from earlier periods are overlooked despite their significant works. For example, a famous list from 1899 included authors who are now largely ignored, highlighting how significance can fade over time.
Second, the number of people who have the opportunity to make notable contributions in arts and sciences has grown more rapidly than the overall population. This means there are more potential achievers today due to factors such as better education and social conditions. Historically, a large part of the population, such as subsistence farmers, had little chance to pursue their talents. Over the centuries, as urbanization and education expanded, more people gained access to the means of achievement. For instance, the number of university students rose significantly in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, outpacing population growth by a large margin in several countries.
These two phenomena suggest that the calculation of accomplishment rates should consider not just the total population but a so-called “de facto population,” which includes those with realistic chances of achieving significant contributions. As a result, the perceived decline in accomplishments in Western history, especially since the Renaissance, is likely even more pronounced when accounting for these biases and demographic changes, further emphasizing the need to be aware of these distortions in historical assessments.
The Nature of the Decline in Science and Technology
There is a debate about whether science and technology have really declined in their achievements during the 19th and 20th centuries. These two hundred years saw major advances that improved people's lives, but measuring significant scientific achievements may not show this accurately. The number of scientists grew faster than the population, yet the rate of important accomplishments seems to have dropped, indicating that something else might be affecting these measurements.
One idea is that the market for scientific discoveries became saturated, meaning there were too many discoveries for the demand. Nonetheless, there were more technical journals and investments in science, suggesting that scientists had more chances than ever before. This evidence points to the idea that the decline in recognized accomplishments is not due to a lack of support or opportunities.
Furthermore, science has shifted to larger teams working together on more complex discoveries. This change might lead to fewer individuals being credited in lists of significant contributors. Many important inventions involve multiple discoveries, which could make it harder to count all these achievements properly.
Lastly, future historians may simplify the number of records for major inventions, which means that the current lists might be too detailed. Overall, while scientific achievements have become more complex, it is unclear whether they are truly underreported or sometimes exaggerated in records.
When an Inventory Misleads
Many scientific inventories highlight numerous discoveries in fields like astronomy, but these often miss the importance of more recent findings. While many discoveries listed were significant at the time, such as identifying moons and comets, they offer little understanding of the solar system today. It’s suggested that the rate of scientific achievements has declined since the mid-1800s. In the late 1960s, a molecular biologist named Gunther Stent argued that science's progress might be nearing its end, a view that gained traction among scientists over the years. He compared scientific exploration to completing a jigsaw puzzle: as more pieces are added, the larger, essential ones have already formed a clear picture, leaving subsequent discoveries less impactful. Although many areas still have unanswered questions, this doesn’t necessarily mean significant new knowledge is waiting to be found. Fields like physics and biology reached their fundamental understandings long ago, and today’s researchers may not have the same opportunities for groundbreaking discoveries that previous generations had. Therefore, in many scientific fields, the pivotal advancements may already be behind us.
The Nature of Decline in the Arts
The decline in significant achievements in the arts began in the late 1600s for visual arts, while Western literature experienced a steep drop starting in the second half of the 19th century. Music also saw a decrease in significant figures from the mid-1700s to the early 1800s and has not recovered since. This raises questions about the reasons behind these declines since the number of people working in the arts has increased much faster than population growth.
The increase in human capital in the arts does not correlate with a rise in significant accomplishments. Despite the United States having a vastly larger population compared to Elizabethan England, the capacity to produce standout artists seems to have limits. It is not just about the sheer number of artists but also the ability of society to recognize and accept their work. As populations grow, markets for outstanding artists may reach saturation points, which means that having more artists does not necessarily result in more recognized talent.
The concept of a saturation point can be observed in the performing arts. For example, in classical music, there is often a small number of recordings by top soloists that dominate the market, regardless of the number of skilled musicians available. The presence of so many excellent violinists doesn't lead to a broader selection of top performances due to market preferences for familiar names. This idea, explained by economists Robert Frank and Philip Cook in "The Winner-Take-All Society," points to conditions where specific talents consistently outperform others, leading to a focus on a limited number of recognized artists.
Several factors contribute to winner-take-all markets. First, there's "cloning," or the ability to economically reproduce performances by top artists. Consumers prefer established names because they are often more familiar and seen as the best options. Additionally, consumers develop habits that make them gravitate toward familiar creators, making it difficult for new artists to break through—even if they might be equally talented. These market dynamics create barriers for new works, and while some new artists emerge, they often follow established trends rather than innovating.
Even though there is growth in the arts and literature, the way significant figures are counted can be misleading. The concept of "greatness fatigue" suggests that as the audience grows, their ability to appreciate and recognize outstanding art may not increase at the same rate. For example, a society with an audience of 400 million may not truly recognize ten times as many great artists as one with a 40 million audience. There’s speculation that, despite a higher population, no greater acknowledgment or recognition for significant work from 1900 to 1950 emerged, indicating a deeper issue of artistic decline rather than merely an underappreciation of new talent.
Some believe that the decline in arts achievements correlates with a broader cultural decline in Western civilization, a theme echoed by several intellectuals since the mid-1800s. They argue that this cultural disintegration, impacted by historical events and social changes, has led to a less favorable environment for producing great art. While the growing middle class and accessibility to the arts opened markets for popular culture, it might have also diluted the focus on producing lasting masterpieces.
In conclusion, the reasons behind the declines in artistic accomplishment appear to be tied to deeper societal and market mechanics rather than simply being artifacts of statistical counting. As the recognition of artistic work becomes more complicated in larger populations, the actual rates of significant accomplishments in the arts may indeed reflect real declines.