The Scientific Revolution is a different beast altogether from each revolution before it. While the Cognitive and Agricultural Revolution brought about new ways of thinking and doing things that added to the intellect of Sapiens, the Scientific Revolution had an unfortunate side effect: it revealed the extent of knowledge humans still haven’t learned about the natural system of things (Harari, 250). Science and capitalism became further intertwined due to the original marriage of “conquest of knowledge and conquest of territory” (Harari, 284). By adventuring into new lands and claiming them for Europe, Europeans were also discovering new things about the world. Far in the future from this time, Monsanto’s reasoning for “Microsofting” their company have been relatively the same: the conquest of knowledge, but for conquest of “scientific territory” instead of actual territory (Elmore, 159). Why were Europeans and Americans much more adept at navigating this marriage instead of those from China and India? That is because Europeans and Americans had that original mindset of knowledge and territory, which made it much easier for them to harness new scientific tools and theories. That’s exactly how Monsanto went from a chemical company to a biotechnology company; they saw an opportunity for a capitalist venture in the form of new scientific territory and took it.
I think the Scientific Revolution is the slipperiest of slopes out of the three revolutions. It’s led to studies that people pursue purely for money that didn’t exist before we created them. I would be lying if I said money wasn’t a factor in my studying computer science, but this book has me questioning the benefit of studying something like this. Computers are something we invented that, while useful, aren’t 100% necessary for survival. What if we end up having a “Technological Regression,” where my skills are no longer useful? This book made me question a lot.