37

If an advanced being or group wanted to limit a human society's technological development, they might establish a series of cultural taboos or religious guidelines to influence the societies development.

Assume that the creators of these guidelines are not going to be around to enforce them after they are established. Some religious group may be there to enforce the rules, but they should not have any greater technological knowledge than the general population.

The society should be maintained at a near medieval agrarian level, no gunpowder no steam engines, or complex machinery. Aristotelian like philosophies of ideas or pure mathematics are okay, but experimental science that leads to new technologies should be severely limited.

How do you outlaw technological development, without being too specific in your commandments? You can't just say 'thou shalt not use steam for power', or don't make explosive powders, without giving clues to intelligent heretics to the secret of possible technologies.

There don't necessarily have to be ten commandments, but I think a small number of simple rules would be more likely to survive intact for a long period of time.

So what should the commandments be?

Josh King
  • 24,856
  • 5
  • 65
  • 96
  • 4
    That was done by those in charge in the very early part of this book. ​ (Dissenters buried an android set to activate 750 years later, and the rest of that book and series is about the android breaking the stasis.) ​ ​ ​ ​ –  Jul 10 '16 at 05:38
  • Not a serious answer because it doesn't address the "not leaving clues" point, but how about "thou shalt not constrain the expansion of gases, for they are holy"? Neatly cuts off both gunpowder (except for fireworks) and steam engines, while allowing most technologies from before that point. – N. Virgo Jul 10 '16 at 08:33
  • 19
    I think you have a problem here. The actual biblical Ten Commandments say "thou shalt not murder", yet most of our fundamental technological advances through time have come from human-on-human violence. You don't need a new set of Commandments; you need to find a way to make people stick to the ones you've already got. – Lightness Races in Orbit Jul 10 '16 at 12:54
  • @RickyDemer After reading the first sentence, for a second there I wondered if that link pointed to the Bible... – Federico Poloni Jul 10 '16 at 13:17
  • 8
    "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man's mind." - Orange Catholic Bible =) – Cort Ammon Jul 10 '16 at 16:27
  • 5
    It probably won't work. How can you maintain a global empire without technology? Even if one isolated nation doesn't follow your religion (either because it doesn't reach them, or because they become heretics), they will have an advantage, and will out-compete your civilization. – vsz Jul 10 '16 at 17:13
  • 1
    Although I posted an answer I think I'm not quite comfortable with the grammar of the question. Could you please explain further in what kind of technological development would you want to forbid? If you are specific to industrial revolution then it would be wise to say so because even with very rudimentary tools you can achieve quite a lot. A trebuchet is a great invention, as are arrows with poisonous tips, as is using plants to boost muscle power or as a medicine. You didn't say whether you'd like people to not want to advance in technology or want to advance but are forbidden to do so. – boris42 Jul 10 '16 at 21:37
  • Are your medieval agrarians allowed to make soap? Doing things with ash can lead to chemistry which can lead to all sorts of more advanced things. – Anthony X Jul 11 '16 at 00:34
  • @Nathaniel That would require the people to know which effects come from expansion of gases. It might work, but it would violate the idea of people not knowing more than they are allowed to use. – Ville Niemi Jul 11 '16 at 04:38
  • 3
    @FedericoPoloni That makes no sense. There are almost no ways the bible had limited technological development, at least without being twisted or construed. – Xandar The Zenon Jul 11 '16 at 04:54
  • "God shall not suffer writing or records/recordings other than [the holy book]. If those writings are in agreement with [the holy book], we have no need of them; and if they are opposed to [the holy book], destroy them."

    Without written records it's almost impossible to store knowledge over generations.

    – Murphy Jul 11 '16 at 15:10
  • Perhaps you should look at how the Amish have set up their society? – Joel Jul 11 '16 at 18:33
  • @LightnessRacesinOrbit you say, " yet most of our fundamental technological advances through time have come from human-on-human violence. " That is an assertion without facts. The fundamental breakthroughs such as the discovery of electricity, magnetism have not been based on violence. Quite the contrary, many of the renowned scientists (Faraday, Newton, Kepler) were devout Christians and worked on the premise that the creator would have put order in his creation. – Καrτhικ Jul 11 '16 at 19:12
  • 1
    I believe some have made the argument that this has actually occurred in the past, therefore we only need to look at past cultural and religious taboos to see what worked for thousands of years before the enlightenment was able to kick start our current advancement. – Michael Jul 11 '16 at 19:37
  • @Καrτhικ I did not say "all", and I did not claim that my comment was a scholarly article with ten pages of references ;) You are free to ignore it if you wish! – Lightness Races in Orbit Jul 11 '16 at 20:11
  • Thou shalt only use the power of muscles, wind and water. Anything else is anathema. In addition to the Safehold series that @RickyDemer mentioned try the Heirs of Empire by the same author. (Note that books 1 and 2 of the series are high tech and not relevant.) – Loren Pechtel Jul 11 '16 at 22:27
  • Forbid Linux and any kind of UNIX-like OS. Problem solved. ;) – Andrea Lazzarotto Jul 12 '16 at 11:03
  • If your god/gods are actively enforcing their commandments, I imagine they would be taken an awful lot more seriously than otherwise. I hate to bring it up, but it is relevant, so you may want to see this (NSFW, not-exactly-politically-correct) series for an example of a world where this is the case. – Jules Jul 12 '16 at 15:41

20 Answers20

34

Thou shalt live as thy parents lived, and work as thy parents worked.

That would pretty much stop everything, if people stick to it. Some allowances would have to be made for people to step into needed roles here and there, though. But it'd keep society generally static, since all positions of power - not just monarchy/chiefdom - would be inherited by default (which could be an incentive for whomever first introduced the "law").

It does however requires a very stable population and climate. But that condition can also work the other way: Stability can preclude the need for societal change. You're supposing someone has to make sure it doesn't change, but around the world there are still peoples/tribes who live much like their ancestors did a thousand or more years ago, simply because they've had no urgent need to do anything else. Nobody sat down and agreed to hit pause on the whole thing.

But such cultures are few and far between now due to the encroachment of other cultures. So your society would have to avoid contact with the rest of the world, if it's to remain static. That should probably be a commandment too, somehow. Not that contact by itself would necessarily bring about the end of the society (infectious diseases notwithstanding), but if those other cultures show up to fight, it's a different matter. Superior weapons technology - which seems to be something you're alluding too with all the talk of gunpowder - sadly spreads faster than most any other technology. E.g. you'll all too easily find AK-47s in places without basic sanitation.

And since your society is in a place with plentiful resources, someone will likely show up to grab it. So provided your society isn't immediately wiped out by an external aggressor, and provided they even try defending themselves, they'll soon have to get a bit more creative than usual.

Point is: It'll be difficult to enforce a static society, unless the conditions are such that you don't need to enforce it.

But some do try. For real-world inspiration, look to the Amish. They shun modern technology (some groups more than others), though they're staying ahead of medieval times*. Or look at religious institutions with monks or similarly dedicated adherents; they often eschew technology in their own lives. For the most radical approach, there are the few muslim extremist that advocate returning (by force) to the time of the Prophet - which would in fact be the middle ages.

But with some regressive religious notions, it's not that the religious texts or their (earthly) authors necessarily meant to freeze society. Sometimes it's just that they laid out how a contemporary society should work - contemporary to themselves, that is. And the way they did it didn't (couldn't) account for hundreds or thousands of years of change. Imagine if current-day building codes became inviolable holy text: A thousand years from now, it'd force believers to build houses like ours, despite the advent of sentient nanoswarm construction and the fact that most humans live in nutrient-filled orbital tubes or something.

Speaking of space, you can watch Star Trek: Insurrection, which features a society very much like what you're talking about. Spoiler:

They're actually very advanced, but actively choose "the simple life".

It's not a great movie, though.


*) As pointed out by Michael Hampton in the comments, this is a too-simplistic a description. The Amish do not summarily reject modern technology, they simply prioritize it differently and are much more cautious and deliberate in adopting it.

Flambino
  • 1,194
  • 7
  • 8
  • 1
    While this would slow technological progress down, it wouldn't stop it. Inevitably there would be some non-adherents making progress, and their discoveries would filter into the population of the adherents, at which point it would become acceptable for the next generation. The Amish retain their position because they have an established baseline technological level that they avoid advancing beyond. This suggestion is more like ultra-Orthodox Jewish mentality - they tend to lag behind a few years as new technology is assimilated into the accepted lifestyle, but don't really maintain stasis. – IndigoFenix Jul 10 '16 at 08:52
  • @IndigoFenix It'd depend on how dogmatic the society is. You say the commandment is "a suggestion", but that's your interpretation. Maybe this society sees it as absolutely inviolable law. If it does, it'll work. If not, well, then it won't work, but that goes for any law, religious or otherwise. The Amish might adopt modern farming tomorrow, or ultra-Orthodox Jews might call full stop on all technological progress; that's up to them. And besides, I spend much of my answer talking specifically about how the society would have to avoid other cultures (i.e. non-adherents) to stay "pure". – Flambino Jul 10 '16 at 12:06
  • By "suggestion" I meant the answer itself. Even if people adhered to the law absolutely, it leaves too many open ends - since it doesn't define any absolute boundaries, it permits technology to evolve slowly with each generation, provided it does so gradually enough that each generation can consider itself within acceptable parameters of 'living as your parents lived'. I could see this as being one of the 'Ten Commandments', perhaps even the first (the principle that encompasses the whole), but it needs to be augmented with well-defined boundaries to halt technological progress. – IndigoFenix Jul 10 '16 at 16:02
  • @IndigoFenix Ah, misunderstood what you meant by "suggestion". And yeah, I see what you mean. I'm not saying this commandment should stand alone - things would undoubtedly be derived from it and codified. Even alone, though, it'd introduce a simple test: "Did my father/mother ever do this?" If no, then neither should you, full stop. Again, it's a matter of strict dogmatism, but also of need. As mentioned, much depends on the conditions being such that there's really no need to "rebel" or invent. – Flambino Jul 10 '16 at 17:42
  • 5
    It's a bit too simplistic to say that the Amish "shun modern technology". They are well aware of modern technology. It would be better to say that they very carefully consider it before adopting or rejecting it. – Michael Hampton Jul 10 '16 at 20:59
  • @MichaelHampton A fair point, will edit – Flambino Jul 10 '16 at 21:29
  • 5
    Except...what if your parents lived and worked as scientists and inventors who diligently pressed each new invention into service for themselves? One could rapidly develop and adopt new technologies in that case. It could even lead to exponential technological growth if/when they reach the point of being able to invent robots capable of doing science and inventing things. I think you need at least one extra commandment, which rules out scientist/inventor/visionary/similar disruptive options as valid career paths. – aroth Jul 11 '16 at 03:57
  • This kind of commandment is too vague and generic to be realistically effective. – Tomáš Zato Jul 11 '16 at 08:16
  • There are a couple of other problems with this: 1) All scripture is a matter on interpretation & re-interpretation, which is subject to external forces/demands. I.E., Overly constraining "scripture" tends to get formally reinterpreted to meet cultural needs, and this reinterpretation then becomes the "strict" interpretation. General examples: pre-rabbinical Judaism, rabbinical Judaism, Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Sunni Islam, Sharia Islam, etc. Specific example "Keep the Sabbath Holy" has been constantly reinterpreted to allow, dis-allow and require different things for thousands of year. – RBarryYoung Jul 11 '16 at 11:47
  • Example: What if your parents were Infidels, Immigrants, or foreigners who did not follow these rules? Then you be bound to work as they did which would allow the introduction of new ways and practices into culture, spread by intermarriage.
  • – RBarryYoung Jul 11 '16 at 11:52
  • and worst (IMHO) 3) While preventing technological change, it also prevents other cultural adaptation necessary for the survival of a culture/society. Ecological change (many historical examples), economic challenges, forced migration, invasion threats, all require significant cultural adaptation. A culture that cannot adapt at all cannot survive. In short, this rule is just too blunt an instrument. – RBarryYoung Jul 11 '16 at 11:57
  • @RBarryYoung The answer does spend a lot of time discussing the conditions necessary for this to work, namely isolation and very little need for adaptation. All of that is in the answer. Also interesting that you consider it too constraining to work, while other commenters consider it too loose to work. I do believe this "religion" is experiencing its first schism... – Flambino Jul 11 '16 at 22:09
  • @aroth True, but if the "law" is set down with the express purpose of freezing progress, the society wouldn't be very hospitable to scientists and inventors anyway. Someone may continue their parents's work toward a better plowshare, but who's going to use it if everyone else sticks to the old ways? The society needs not be all-inclusive; discontents may just leave. Besides, only scientists's offspring would be scientists in this scheme; the lineage may just die out with no replacement, because who needs them? Everything else is static anyway. – Flambino Jul 11 '16 at 22:21