Historical Tech Tree

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Overall reception and usability

  • Many commenters find the site “a gem” and aesthetically impressive, evoking Civilization/Paradox-style tech trees.
  • Several people struggle with navigation: too much empty space, hard to see context on one screen, especially on mobile.
  • Repeated requests for zoom in/out, better minimap use, snap-to-next-item or “jump to nearest” hotkeys, and thousands separators in dates.
  • Some want alternate formats: vertical mobile view, simplified big-poster version.

Exploring the graph: descendants and ancestors

  • One commenter mined the public JSON to compute:
    • Top inventions by direct descendants (e.g., high‑vacuum tube, automobile, stored‑program computer).
    • Top by total descendants (e.g., control of fire, charcoal, iron, ceramics, boats, alcohol fermentation).
    • Top by total ancestors (e.g., robotaxi, moon landing, satellites, space telescopes).
  • Sparks discussion about how much recent, complex tech aggregates vast chains of prerequisites.

Methodology, scope, and bias

  • The tree is scraped largely from Wikipedia; several users note Western bias and underrepresentation of Chinese writing and non‑Western routes.
  • Some technologies appear as terminus nodes due to missing edges, not because they truly lack dependencies.
  • Commenters argue institutions (nation‑states, corporations, universities, international projects) should appear as enabling “technologies.”
  • Criticism that basic science, metallurgy, precision machining, textiles, and clothing are underemphasized.
  • Others point out gendered bias: textile and domestic technologies (stitches, knots, clothing variants) are barely present.

Historical accuracy and definitional issues

  • Users point out specific dating errors (e.g., screw‑cutting lathe, shoes) that trace back to Wikipedia; some are corrected in response.
  • Confusion over missing “fire” and “knots” is partly resolved (“control of fire” exists; ropes substitute for knots).
  • Debate over the project’s definition of “technology” and its inconsistent application (e.g., inclusion of nixtamalization).
  • Some historians (or historically minded commenters) worry that a tech‑tree model overstates linear causality and downplays contingency and lost knowledge.

Broader reflections and related resources

  • Discussion branches into how precision can exceed original tools, Da Vinci’s lathes, and self‑improving manufacturing.
  • Commenters compare with other media (Dr. Stone, “How to Invent Everything,” HFY/“competence porn” fiction) and related projects like Universal Tech Tree and futuretimeline.net.
  • Several note the impossibility of completeness and suggest crowdsourcing or agents to iteratively enrich the tech graph.