Greatest invention ever made?

[yaruar]

The greatest invention of all time is very very clear to me. It can't be clear to any of you other buggers cos you haven't mentioned it yet.











It's the PlayStation 2. Any other response to the question "What is the best thing ever?" would be wrong. And you all fucking know it!

SUrely the ps1 is more important as without the ps1 there would be no ps2...

 

[Driwen]

SUrely the ps1 is more important as without the ps1 there would be no ps2...

then you end up going back to inventions that finally lead to the ps2 .

and think you can argue that the wheel or the boat were just as important as farming as it allowed communities to be brought together.

And think that for our period the transistor is the invention as it has lead to electronics being small and fast.
Think electricity was the bigger invention than the telegraph though, as electricity allowed the telegraph to exist and made it possible to have lights and other equipment.

 

[FuzzyLogic]

Electricity was a discovery though, right?

Quite sure someone already mentioned this earlier oO

 

[DaGaffer]

Electricity was a discovery though, right?

Quite sure someone already mentioned this earlier oO

[pedant]the ability to harness electricity was an invention, or series of inventions (the electric motor, battery etc.)[/pedant]

 

[DaGaffer]

and think you can argue that the wheel or the boat were just as important as farming as it allowed communities to be brought together.

.

So did farming. It allowed people to stay in one place, which had been impossible in hunter-gatherer societies where people had to keep moving to find food, and only small groups of people could stay together for any period of time (or the food would run out). Cities are a direct result of the invention of agriculture (cities aren't viable without farms to support them, and they grew from the need to store and protect grain etc.) The wheel probably happened because of the needs of farming anyway, although the boat/raft was probably a much earlier invention

 

[yaruar]

then you end up going back to inventions that finally lead to the ps2 .

and think you can argue that the wheel or the boat were just as important as farming as it allowed communities to be brought together.

And think that for our period the transistor is the invention as it has lead to electronics being small and fast.
Think electricity was the bigger invention than the telegraph though, as electricity allowed the telegraph to exist and made it possible to have lights and other equipment.

it's hard to say though. A lot of the time it's not the initial discovery/invention that is the most important one it's the innovative use of that in something else which is the key.

Like with cars. The car might have been one of the most important inventions ever, but the process of mass production of the car for the masses ALA henry ford was probably the most important part because before that point the car itself had little impact on society.

As an interesting aside I might change my vote and say the most important piece of invention was Adam Smith's inventive use of thought when coming up with the concepts of specialisation of labour in the wealth of nations.

 

[yaruar]

So did farming. It allowed people to stay in one place, which had been impossible in hunter-gatherer societies where people had to keep moving to find food, and only small groups of people could stay together for any period of time (or the food would run out). Cities are a direct result of the invention of agriculture (cities aren't viable without farms to support them, and they grew from the need to store and protect grain etc.) The wheel probably happened because of the needs of farming anyway, although the boat/raft was probably a much earlier invention

Interestingly enough thought the invention of the wheen wasn't essential for advancement of society, the native american cultures did exceptionally well without the wheel up until the coming of the europeans with both large cities and complex and very mobile nomadic cultures.

 

[Bodhi]

You seem to misunderstand - when I consider the PS2 to be the greatest invention ever, I mean it is the best invention ever. I don't really give an entry to the mile high club whether it was the most important invention ever - but imo, it is clearly the best. So no, the PS1 wasn't the best invention ever, as it wasn't as good as PS2. As for the transistor, very clever yes, but it's also very difficult to have fun with one - they'd don't really do enough interesting on their own to figure into the equation imh and the most important invention was clearly Tomato Ketchup. I would have starved to death without it.

 

[Wij]

You seem to misunderstand - when I consider the PS2 to be the greatest invention ever, I mean it is the best invention ever. I don't really give an entry to the mile high club whether it was the most important invention ever - but imo, it is clearly the best. So no, the PS1 wasn't the best invention ever, as it wasn't as good as PS2. As for the transistor, very clever yes, but it's also very difficult to have fun with one - they'd don't really do enough interesting on their own to figure into the equation imh and the most important invention was clearly Tomato Ketchup. I would have starved to death without it.

Can I vote Tommy K as the worst invention ever then ?

 

[Bodhi]

I knew someone would say that in the aid of being a smartarse. I hoped it wasn't going to be you Wij. I'm dissapointed.....



No more camel pr0n for you.

 

[Jonaldo]

What's the best invention NEVER made?

My vote goes for the Orgasmotron! (the proper one from Barbarella fyi)


oh or maybe the death star


or a time machine..

 

[Bodhi]

PlayStation 3?





No, the best invention never made was clearly KITT. Come on, who doesn't want a 700mph car that can drive itself?

 

[Wij]

I knew someone would say that in the aid of being a smartarse. I hoped it wasn't going to be you Wij. I'm dissapointed.....

I'm nothing if not predictaFISHBUGGERY !

 

[granny]

Greatest invention ever, by "most important" definition I'd go for the mathematical concept of zero. Revolutionised maths and physics rests on maths and all other sciences rest on physics.

By the "most fun" criteria then, well.... contraception! Pisses all over a PS2

 

[Paradroid]

For the Industrial Revolution was the Water Mill not a prime-mover invention? (The Spinning Jenny revolutionised the textiles industry at that time too.)

What about the steam engine?

I would say Maxwells discovery/categorising of electromagnetic relationships is the most important leap in knowledge/understanding in our recent history (1800's).

Inventions-wise, I'd say it has to be Xerox's contribution to the IT revolution - GUIs (and they gave it away!). None of what we do with PCs today would be anywhere near possible if it wasn't for the GUI, imagine if everyone still used some kind of commandline interface with uber-dos knowledge just to do the simplist of things?

 

[Wij]

Inventions-wise, I'd say it has to be Xerox's contribution to the IT revolution - GUIs (and they gave it away!). None of what we do with PCs today would be anywhere near possible if it wasn't for the GUI, imagine if everyone still used some kind of commandline interface with uber-dos knowledge just to do the simplist of things?

People do things a different way ?

 

[Driwen]

So did farming. It allowed people to stay in one place, which had been impossible in hunter-gatherer societies where people had to keep moving to find food, and only small groups of people could stay together for any period of time (or the food would run out). Cities are a direct result of the invention of agriculture (cities aren't viable without farms to support them, and they grew from the need to store and protect grain etc.) The wheel probably happened because of the needs of farming anyway, although the boat/raft was probably a much earlier invention

cities cant exist without trading though and without wheels (unless you use boats) you cant move many/heavy objects which is needed for the city. There are probably many more inventions that lead to the existance of cities (such as sanation for one or ways to get water to cities not next to a water source(river/lake/etc)).

Also I didnt say that farming isnt important, i just said that the wheel/boat can be seen as just as important as it means you have can trade and travel to other cities (yes with horses you dont need any invention, but still not everyone can or will read one and you cant ride a horse through deep water).

 

[DaGaffer]

cities cant exist without trading though and without wheels (unless you use boats) you cant move many/heavy objects which is needed for the city. There are probably many more inventions that lead to the existance of cities (such as sanation for one or ways to get water to cities not next to a water source(river/lake/etc)).

Also I didnt say that farming isnt important, i just said that the wheel/boat can be seen as just as important as it means you have can trade and travel to other cities (yes with horses you dont need any invention, but still not everyone can or will read one and you cant ride a horse through deep water).

Wrong. As already pointed out elsewhere, the pre-Colombian American civilisations (Incas, Aztecs etc) never discovered the wheel, but they still had cities, and in the case of the Incas, they didn't have the water-borne transport option either. They also managed to get by without written language, although they did have numbering systems.

Wheels and boats are great, and demonstrably superior to the alternatives (like the travois the plains indians used), and when cultures with wheels met cutltures without, those without adopted the wheel pretty quickly, but they could have managed without them, whereas a culture is either agricultural, with all that implies (cities, staying in one place, large populations which in turn lead to innovation due to competitive pressure) or its hunter-gatherer, which is limited. No hunter-gather society has ever prevailed against a competing agricultural society in the long run, unless its artificially protected (usually by the very agricultural society it lost out to). Nearest anyone has managed to buck the trend was the mongols, who hated cities and farmers in equal measure, but eventually they were beaten/assimilated as well.

So, no sorry, you're wrong, agriculture is more important than the wheel.

 

[Bodhi]

Not really, a large proportion of farming relies on the wheel. Tractors would be a darn sight slower for starters.

 

[Tom]

Yeah I think the horses would be complaining if we didn't invent the wheel.

 

[Wij]

Not really, a large proportion of farming relies on the wheel. Tractors would be a darn sight slower for starters.

They could use fire or flint surely ?

 

[Jonaldo]

One of my ancestors invented lightning.

 

[DaGaffer]

Yeah I think the horses would be complaining if we didn't invent the wheel.

A talking horse. Now that's an invention! Of course for centuries (until quite recently in fact) ploughs didn't have wheels and horses dragged them...

 

[Bodhi]

Even if the ploughs didn't have wheels, they still used the principle of the wheel with the roatating "blades". And how was the produce taken from the field before the tractor? With a horse and cart. Again, the wheel. This was how it was taken to market, hence enabling the farmer to profit from his work. I'd say it was far more important than farming.

I assume lateral thinking isn't one of your strong points.

 

[Tom]

Actually, people used ploughs, pulled along by horses, and they didn't have wheels. It was bloody hard work. The traction engine soon solved that problem.

 

[Driwen]

Wrong. As already pointed out elsewhere, the pre-Colombian American civilisations (Incas, Aztecs etc) never discovered the wheel, but they still had cities, and in the case of the Incas, they didn't have the water-borne transport option either. They also managed to get by without written language, although they did have numbering systems.

Wheels and boats are great, and demonstrably superior to the alternatives (like the travois the plains indians used), and when cultures with wheels met cutltures without, those without adopted the wheel pretty quickly, but they could have managed without them, whereas a culture is either agricultural, with all that implies (cities, staying in one place, large populations which in turn lead to innovation due to competitive pressure) or its hunter-gatherer, which is limited. No hunter-gather society has ever prevailed against a competing agricultural society in the long run, unless its artificially protected (usually by the very agricultural society it lost out to). Nearest anyone has managed to buck the trend was the mongols, who hated cities and farmers in equal measure, but eventually they were beaten/assimilated as well.

So, no sorry, you're wrong, agriculture is more important than the wheel.

what the incas called cities were most likely towns to us now. Without wheels or boats you cant transport tons of food to the city for miles. So either the food has to be close to the city, which limits the places where you can build a city and the city cant grow as much as it needs mostly provide its own food.

About farming being the reason why armies can be victorious over non farming once that is generally true when a more technological advanced civilization meets another less advanced one. The aztecs would have been easily overrun by the spaniards even if they hadnt basically surrendered themself even with their knowledge of farming.
Also the mongolians did manage to beat other civilizations, which most of did know farming, because they were more advanced in warfare. Off course they lost in the end, but that was because they were a race driven just by war and they couldnt live in peace. Besides if their Kahn (their ruler) died there would be a struggle among them who would be the next one, so advancement of their troops have been known to have stopped and retreat for that. They were never really beaten nor assimilated, but were indeed doomed to fail or be assimilated as they couldnt rule that much without settling down.

Anyway the wheel was invented I think to move stuff without the need to carry it yourself and not having it drag on the ground (a good way and simple way to move a heavy block of stone is to let it roll over round pieces of wood, which is basically a wheel). Without farming you cant have more than a few hundred people living together, so the need for a wheel wouldnt be there.
You are claiming that farming is the biggest than I could claim that invention of making tools is bigger as that makes ("commercial") farming and building of houses possible. With such thinking the best invention would be the first invention ever done as it allowed us to become what we are now.

You shouldnt judge the greatness of an invention to what other inventions it has lead to, but what it allows on itself. Yes farming allows people to settle down, but without any real form of transportation you can not have trully big cities nor the ability to trully create one big nation as people on both ends of the nation wont know more than what they can easily travel and usually wont feel like a part of the nation if it is to big(which is measured in how long it takes to travel to somewhere not distance). Boats and wheels have allowed more people to travel easier and have increased the amount that can be traded and the ease of it.

 

[Sharma]

Didnt the UK nominate the Widget as the best invention ever made in the last survey?

 

[Wij]

Didnt the UK nominate the Widget as the best invention ever made in the last survey?

\o/

 

[DaGaffer]

Even if the ploughs didn't have wheels, they still used the principle of the wheel with the roatating "blades". And how was the produce taken from the field before the tractor? With a horse and cart. Again, the wheel. This was how it was taken to market, hence enabling the farmer to profit from his work. I'd say it was far more important than farming.

I assume lateral thinking isn't one of your strong points.

And I assume reading threads properly isn't one of yours. MesoAmerican cultures managed to farm quite successfully without the wheel. Food was taken to market on people's backs, on Llamas or on travois.

 

[DaGaffer]

what the incas called cities were most likely towns to us now.

The populations of Tenochtitlan (the largest Aztec city) just before the Spanish arrived, and London were almost exactly the same - about 200,000.

Without wheels or boats you cant transport tons of food to the city for miles. So either the food has to be close to the city, which limits the places where you can build a city and the city cant grow as much as it needs mostly provide its own food.

Yes you can, you use animals and slaves. Look the point I'm making is you can have agriculture without the wheel, but the need for the wheel largely goes away without agriculture, because you wouldn't have cities and systematic trade.

About farming being the reason why armies can be victorious over non farming once that is generally true when a more technological advanced civilization meets another less advanced one. The aztecs would have been easily overrun by the spaniards even if they hadnt basically surrendered themself even with their knowledge of farming.

That's changing the point slightly; I was being specific about agrarian v. hunter-gatherers, not high tech v. low-tech. Although now you mention it, technology only really comes from agrarian societies that have the spare food capacity to feed people who don't directly contribute to food production, giving them the time to invent things, fight wars, run priesthoods etc.

Also the mongolians did manage to beat other civilizations, which most of did know farming, because they were more advanced in warfare. Off course they lost in the end, but that was because they were a race driven just by war and they couldnt live in peace. Besides if their Kahn (their ruler) died there would be a struggle among them who would be the next one, so advancement of their troops have been known to have stopped and retreat for that. They were never really beaten nor assimilated, but were indeed doomed to fail or be assimilated as they couldnt rule that much without settling down.

They were very much assimilated. That was part of the problem, the various Khanates at the edge of the Golden Horde got too attached to the civilisations they conquered. The core of Mongolia wasn't really assimilated until the 19th century, but thats because it was a far-away useless shithole that no-one wanted. But anyway my point stands, the hunter-gatherer (or at best horse-farmer) Mongols couldn't hold territory unless they turned into the thing they despised, 'settled'.

Anyway the wheel was invented I think to move stuff without the need to carry it yourself and not having it drag on the ground (a good way and simple way to move a heavy block of stone is to let it roll over round pieces of wood, which is basically a wheel). Without farming you cant have more than a few hundred people living together, so the need for a wheel wouldnt be there.

Never said the wheel wasn't great or important, just not the most important.

You are claiming that farming is the biggest than I could claim that invention of making tools is bigger as that makes ("commercial") farming and building of houses possible. With such thinking the best invention would be the first invention ever done as it allowed us to become what we are now.

Actually, I didn't. At the start of the thread I said the printing press was the most important invention, I just said that farming was more important than the wheel when the two are compared. I don't actually regard farming as an 'invention' as such, since it was largely accidental and discovered in lots of places. And yes you could argue that tool use is one of the biggest 'inventions' of all (except there are arguments that tool use was a pre-concious discovery that was around before we even became human). But sure, in a 'what did the Romans ever do for us?' stylee, Tools, Agriculture and the Printing Press get the awards for most important inventions.

You shouldnt judge the greatness of an invention to what other inventions it has lead to, but what it allows on itself. Yes farming allows people to settle down, but without any real form of transportation you can not have trully big cities nor the ability to trully create one big nation as people on both ends of the nation wont know more than what they can easily travel and usually wont feel like a part of the nation if it is to big(which is measured in how long it takes to travel to somewhere not distance). Boats and wheels have allowed more people to travel easier and have increased the amount that can be traded and the ease of it.

I think I already proved this isn't true because of MesoAmerica. The Aztecs covered a lot of ground without the wheel.