|
The Economic Eras & Transition Periods
|
There have been three Economic Eras in human history. They were: Hunter-Gatherer, Agricultural and the current Industrial Era. The following chart shows what the economic eras look like graphically represented when they are set side by side. I was forced to make both the industrial and agricultural eras proportionally larger in the following graph than they really were, in order to have them legibly show up on the chart at all. This is due to the acceleration in technology development which has at first glance quickened from one economic era to the next. The acceleration rate has not changed but rather the complexity of the technologies which humanity utilizes and consumes have become significantly more complex than the sharpened sticks and stones which the earliest humans used to survive. Therefore the early technologies are viewed as glacially slow to develop but in reality were moving at the same acceleration rate humanity has always experienced.
|

In the Hunter-gatherer era humanity was frequently on the move as they were not the top of the food chain. Humanity did not reach the top of the food chain till the very end of the hunter-gatherer era during the period called the Pleistocene overkill. A period when the hunting process and technology improved to the point where archeologists theorize that humanity wiped out many large animal species. However that was only towards the later stages of the hunter-gatherer era. Therefore hunter-gatherers diffused information typically from one generation to the next or with communication enabled by travel on foot.
The process for communication diffusion took an incredibly long time as a result. This process increases in velocity during the Agricultural era because humans began to group together in ever larger towns and cities which made transmission and maturation of technology era to era comparatively much faster. Of course the advancements in communication technology even now in the industrial era accelerated the diffusion to even shorter time spans (greater speeds). The speed for the lifecycles of human economic eras is occurring increasing faster (i.e. hunter-gatherer era was much longer than the agricultural era etc). However in modeling the development cycles the acceleration rate shows up as relatively unchanged.
Ray Kurzweil, the inventor for many of the core technologies of the information age has proven this dynamic mathematically. He put the advances in technology into an logarithmic view which shows that though we are accelerating, the rate has never changed no matter how far one go goes back in human history. Kurzweil has a good explanation for his law of acceleration on his website.
The agricultural era is the last complete era which has also been the most thoroughly studied and documented. The following chart lays out the Transition Periods for the Agricultural era based on accepted scholarly opinion today for the history of that era. The Transition Periods shows the process each age undergoes and how the mini updates to worldview coalesced to culminate with the major update and then the subsequent transmission for worldview. Worldview produces a brand new survival guide which undergoes a process where it is customized for the specific economic era.
|
|
The three Economic eras with the Transition Periods

The last issues we will address concerning the economic eras are how the model rationalizes the exact number of economic eras humanity has experienced. There are proposals for as many as five economic eras in other models; however, this is a historical model and not one for philosophy or sociology, which were the basis for those classifications.
When examining any economic era – one must use stringent logic to thresh through the data. Today even the casual observer realizes technology powers the economy. Therefore when determining what specifically constitutes an economic era, basic factors such as how technology was enabled, how it was powered and finally what was technologies distinct impact on society. If one compares subset logic, such as the gender of a societies gods or other factors then an economic era can not be defined within the context of a historical construction. This model recognizes three distinctive economic eras by examining how the technology cores were enabled, utilized and the technologies subsequent transformation in human communications.
|
|
Common denominators in technology that serve to define an economic era
|
|
Technology Cores
|
Hunter-Gatherer
|
Agricultural
|
Industrial
|
|
How Technology Powered
|
Human
|
Natural
- Wind
- Water
- Animal
|
Machine
- Steam
- Electric
- & many more
|
|
Communications Enabled
|
Human
- Feet
- Language
- Images
- Fire
|
Animal
- Wheel
- Ships
- Writing
- Paper
|
Machine
- Telegraph
- Auto
- Telephone
- Internet
|
|
What Investment Vehicle
|
No surplus
- Subsistence economy
- Trinket trading
|
Ad hoc Markets
- Goods traded
- Not Currency
|
Financial Institiutions
- Currency expected
- Complex trading
|
|
In the preceding table the basic factors are listed relative to technological development and impact in the three economic eras. Though there are some outliers in data points the overwhelming and the vast majority of the data is grouped on these factors throughout the three eras. The factors listed above were essentially constant for their corresponding eras. Heron of Alexandria (10-70CE) did invent a kind of steam engine but what were the applications and impacts for his invention? His engineering design for wind power certainly were diffused and utilized within the agricultural era. Heron's steam device clearly was not utilized or diffused as one neither sees nor finds it anywhere else in antiquity. Steam power only becomes ubiquitous in the industrial era and not before.
The reasons to refer to the age of horticulture as a different economic era from the agrarian age which followed it may work within the constructs for sociology and other disciplines. However, when we utilize factors such as the evolution in worldview to measure an economic era, the experts for the Neolithic period like David Lewis-Williams tells us that worldview was not updated in the simple horticultural period in the era of agriculture. Just as is was not updated in the early phases of the industrial era. Were there new thoughts? Yes of course! Were they accepted and adopted en masse in either of the last two economic eras during the inheritance phase (the first 40% of every economic era)? No. Were they adopted by the majority – as good a measure for diffusion as any – again No.
In the absence of what constitutes, as well as the relative timeframes for an era, one can not group any amount of data for utilization within a historical model. Hierarchical factors and their cause and effects can not be understood. History then remains a muddled series of epic stories in histiography and understanding in discrete events. Merely by asking the right questions, we can move history from story telling and data acquisition toward a hard science. The industrial era has seen other humanity based disciplines move into the scientific method. I believe what holds all of those fields such as economics back is the lack of progress within the study of human history which was an early leader over 200 years ago. It is for this reason why a standard model, this or any other model, should be added to the academic discourse. The comparitive analytics yield for history could be no less important than the yield from Joseph Schumpeter's work 80 years ago for macro economics.
Having constructed a structure documenting the process for changes in evolving worldview via the Transition Periods for every Economic era, we should now look in more detail at the agricultural era as it is the best documented economic era which is also complete.
Agricultural Era or Model Index
|
|