The Universal Tech Tree
61 comments
·June 2, 2025acenturyandabit
WillAdams
Does anyone know of a similar arrangement for books or biographies?
At one point in time I tried to read one of each major category of books in the Dewey Decimal system but was stymied (need to try again using LoC), then later, wanted to read biographies in chronological order to my kids, but that was a hard list to put together.
For an associated text, see:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29240912-why-the-wheel-i...
which I'm currently reading and which is quite good and very engaging.
uncertainrhymes
Someone is probably already making the most brutal Factorio mod of all time.
maxekman
That is fantastic! Thanks for providing the link. I was expecting something like that on the submission URL.
croemer
Thanks! I could not find it
NamTaf
I was waiting for the inevitable Connections reference. It took longer than I expected.
I like the idea and I like the article describing the background and rationale. I look forward to poking around in it. However I have a little bit of a hang-up with calling it a “tree”. Namely, a tree conjures the image of it being a 1-to-N graph, i.e. a single idea leads to several new ones, and so on, when it is very much not.
Ironically Connections was really what rammed this point home for me. It really is more like a social media graph, where ideas from all over, old and new, coalesce into a new epiphany that leads to a new invention. Burke constantly demonstrated this in his examples, and explicitly rejected the linearity of inventions.
But then again, the concept of a ‘tree of tech’ is rather poetic :)
jlcx
Speaking of Burke, I believe his book The Pinball Effect has notations in the margins directing the reader to other pages that mention the same node in the graph (whether that's exactly how he thought of it or not). It seems like an interesting attempt to express this non-linear structure in the form of a book.
Sniffnoy
He explicitly says in the article that it's actually a DAG.
garrettgarcia
I see your point about it not being a strict tree. It is tree-like, however, in the sense that the branches/edges only point in one direction: forward in time.
MarkusQ
But it's a reticulating structure; yes, the graph is directed / partially ordered, but it's certainly not tree-like.
The key property of real trees is that they _branch_ and the branches don't recombine.
garrettgarcia
Au contraire: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inosculation
I do agree that branches staying separate is the essential property of a tree data structure.
aidenn0
Which is why the article points out that it's a directed acyclic graph, not a tree.
tunesmith
One of my favorite things to wonder about is if our historical tech tree has ever been truly limited by anything other than human ingenuity. Like, if not for the random placement of smart people in the right places, who's to say we might not have started launching rockets 500 years ago, or 500 years from now? And how disjoint can branches of a a tech tree really be; are there branches of our tree that could conceivably be completely dark ages and undiscovered given where we are in the other branches? But it's the first question that is most fun: have we ever been externally gated, like where a certain idea or technology was just completely impossible to invent discover until something external happened like a meteor hitting the ground, or a volcano erupting, etc?
abtinf
Yes, we have been gated.
In the book Guns, Germs, and Steel, Jared Diamond develops a theory for why Europe and Asia developed vast, powerful civilizations, but Africa and the Americas did not.
In Africa, the co-evolution of primates/humans and other life resulted in that other life becoming extremely dangerous to humans. My impression is that if Africa were the only continent, humans would still be living in caves, because nature had enough time to adapt. Even today, we do not have the technology to tame the wildlife and diseases of Africa, nor will most crops grow there. So the ability to escape the continent would have been the first “external gate”.
In the Americas, the geography and north-south orientation of the continents, as well as the lack of work animals and crops suitable for agriculture, gated development until much later than Europe and Asia. Corn took a very long time to go from being an itty bitty little thing to a crop capable of supporting civilization.
AlotOfReading
Guns, Germs and Steel is a pretty terrible attempt at a theory. The largest East-West band of climatically similar areas isn't Eurasia, it's the Sahel in Africa, which incidentally does have quite a bit of native agriculture, including a plant extremely similar to corn called sorghum. The near east where European agriculture originated was actually a complicated patchwork of microclimates leading up to the neolithic, which cultures like the natufians essentially arbitraged. If we go down that pathway you end up at something like the vertical archipelago model, developed to understand Andean agriculture. Corn also wasn't the first crops domesticated in the Americas. Squashes were, around the same time as the near east was experimenting with vetches (because cereal grains hadn't caught on yet there either).
So on and so forth. Diamond didn't put a lot of effort into making his theory actually fit the evidence, he just wrote an engaging book.
srithon
Could you suggest any good books which go over this kind of global history? Until now I’d also accepted Diamond’s work as the leading theory for global inequality, since it was taught in school and I never looked into it further.
walleeee
Energy and materials. In particular, discovery and exploitation of hydrocarbons changed the entire trajectory of human technology development.
It is very interesting to wonder if we may have seen "convergent evolution" towards certain technologies with different physical circumstances, but I think it's safe to say our species' (and planet's) future is forever altered by the massive biogeochemical battery, trickle-charged over eons, which we are discharging as rapidly as possible.
philipkglass
I'd say that the more proximate factor is knowledge. Fossil fuels have been around longer than humanity, and the earliest human usage of them was prehistoric:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_coal_mining#Early_h...
The oldest intentional use of black coal was documented in Ostrava, Petřkovice, in a settlement from the older Stone Age on the top of Landek Hill. According to radiocarbon dating, the site falls within the period 25,000–23,000 years BC.
The Industrial Revolution wasn't when people first learned about fossil fuels, but it was when we started turning heat into mechanical work at scale.
walleeee
Agreed, knowledge of how to use an energy source is as important as its presence. The former will not have the opportunity to emerge without the latter, though the former may be the more proximate cause of a "revolution". (I think it's important to emphasize material inputs because it is a common and very consequential misconception that prosperity is driven by human ingenuity alone.)
I didn't know that about coal! Thanks.
throwaway82r4
In a different "branch", transportation may look completely different.
Electric cars were invented 200 year ago, and the first rechargeable battery in 1859. I wonder how things would have looked like, if we had focused more on EV.
In a related scenario, if the car lobby hadn't fought so hard to prioritize personal cars instead of public transportation, we would probably have a more efficient society where you could live far away from your work, and commute in 500km/h trains. The towns could become more walkable and condensed. Logistics would be simpler with a more hub based distribution where more of your customers live in the same place. More area could be available for agriculture or preservation of nature instead of being used for highways and spread out metropolitan areas
nradov
Sure. Someone could have invented gunpowder at pretty much any time. It's not particularly complex, just no one figured it out until (probably) some Chinese monks discovered it accidentally in the 9th century. But in some plausible alternate history the Roman legions were using explosives and cannons to conquer the world a millennium before that.
tbrownaw
> But in some plausible alternate history the Roman legions were using explosives and cannons to conquer the world a millennium before that.
IIRC early cannons were pretty severely limited by the state of metallurgy at the time.
AngryData
Wooden cannons do work, albeit with much reduced lifespans and maximum power. Even once metal cannons took off wooden cannons remained common for city and fortress defenses for quite a long time because they could be made cheap and as-needed and in great number, but obviously a wood log with a few wood straps around it aren't going to survive or be preserved for hundreds of years. The straps get recycled and new logs are found after they are either used or sit around for a few years to rot. Metal cannons did eventually win out eventually of course thanks to their accuracy, longevity, and improved metallurgy that made them more eventually more powerful than wooden equivalents, but it did take quite awhile for them to completely outclass and outrange wooden cannon, and wood cannons still had limited use up into the 1800s.
photonthug
Interesting article about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_cannons
The oldest bell foundries do seem to happen at around the same time as the emergence of what we'd call a cannon, but before that there were indeed bamboo tubed contrivances and similar. If the Romans did have gunpowder earlier though, I bet they'd find a way.. I mean you don't hear about stone cannons and they'd be heavy AF but why not? These people basically invented fracking in BC, and literally tore down mountains to shake out all the gold. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_M%C3%A9dulas
khuey
The answer is clearly yes IMO. We probably wouldn't have nuclear fission if it weren't for Shinkolobwe, which by sheer luck had uranium ore at a concentration far greater than any uranium ore ever found anywhere else on earth. Surely there are other technologies we're missing out on simply because we don't (or didn't at the time) have the raw materials.
tunesmith
On the other hand, Shinkolobwe didn't arrive by meteor - it wasn't there one day after not being there the day before.
celim307
I’m being pedantic but while external factors definitely can cause big jumps in tech, everything is always interconnected. We can’t discover rocketry without previous leaps in material science, those were impossible without manufacturing and mining infrastructure, those not possible without agriculture and sociological structures and organization, not to mention all the associated advances in mathematics etc
tunesmith
That's exactly the right level of pedantry. ;-) Right, I'd argue all of that is in the human ingenuity category.
But in contrast, if we knew that some invention like grinding lenses or whatever was completely impossible until some meteor or fungus hit planet Earth in year N and introduced a new element we were able to use, then that's an external factor.
I suppose there more pedantry is possible, like we could have invented space travel meteor-hopping tech by that point and discovered the "new element" for ourselves, but that's probably the wrong level of pedantry.
I think the closest practical answer is probably more along the lines of population density, and arguing that certain inventions would not be created until the density was enough to create a problem justifying its existence.
johngalt
We can certainly imagine a limiting factor based on our prior development. Imagine a world where large amounts of coal or oil never formed, or formed in a manner that made it inaccessible to a pre-industrial revolution society. Without easily accessible chemical energy, the technical progress made during the industrial revolution probably takes 1000 years instead of 100.
The age of discovery was a similar scenario. Imagine a different world where 2/3rds of the continents are uninhabitable desert/tundra/arctic, and there was no economic benefit to better ships, clocks, astronomy, cartography. Delays social development of joint stock corporations etc...
corimaith
More than just human ingenuity than human political organization. Building modern technology requires all the amenities a moderns state affords it, from capital financing, to complex supply chains, to modern bureaucracy, to rule of law, to a willing populace that can conform to rigid roles. Stuff like that takes hundreds of years to build, not so much from innovation but the accumulation of trust and conformity, and the necessary defences to prevent outside invasions from nomadic warlords like the Mongols.
preachermon
> to modern bureaucracy, to rule of law,
I wish these were still in fashion
jlcx
For something related that takes a very different approach: https://causegraph.github.io/causalaxies
In contrast to the author's decisions here, I decided to
-go for an "everything tree" even if that will contain many more errors
-use DBpedia/Wikidata, and address issues discovered by editing Wikipedia/Wikidata
-use a 3D visualization tool, due to the size of the graph
I think it reveals an interesting overall structure, and some interesting details for those who zoom in despite the issues with the data.
ricksunny
OK this is amazeballs. Can you expound on technical implementation? Relying on Wikidata, then it relies on whatever Wikidata editors' internal governance system is for inclusion, exclusion, quality control of entries, correct?
I see you submitted this to HN almost a decade ago. How has it not gotten picked up for discussion??
diggan
Very coincidental as I've been building my own "technology tree" for a game I'm doing, but currently just at ~50 technologies. It would be amazing if this universal tech tree would also publish its data under a permissive license, I'm sure it could be useful to more folks than just me, and would make it even more universal!
CommenterPerson
I love it that the Tech Tree goes all the way back to a stone tool. It reclaims the word Technology. If we asked a youngster to describe Technology they might point to a phone or a computer. Noooo .. it is "is the application of conceptual knowledge to achieve practical goals" (Wikipedia). Phones and computers are a small subset of Technology.
DavidPiper
I'm not sure how accurate the dot-graph is at the bottom of the Tree, but anyone notice that 1880 to 1980 has a huge density, and since about 1980 we seem to be stagnating?
Data collection bias? Goalpost/definition change maybe (many recent advances are in "better" software and hardware)? Less research/exploration investment vs. business/exploitation investment?
Interesting to think about "what if my whole life has actually been in a period of global exploratory slowdown?"
davedx
Possibly related to that period having two world wars and the Cold War? If I look a lot of the inventions in that timeline, they're related to or directly funded by warfare. Consider radio and radar, rocketry, space flight, the Internet and its related technologies, there's a very big list.
In the US, institutions like DARPA were directly funded for that purpose.
thrtythreeforty
One of my favorite sci-fi authors wrote Lady of Mazes, which in part explores what a "finished" tech tree looks like, and how societies might explicitly reject parts of it as part of their values. It explores multiple societies physically overlaid but invisible to each other because their technological values are incompatible. (The titular lady possesses a rare ability to step through to different societies.)
efm
Thanks for doing this research!
The information is organized clearly by date, technology and predecessor/descendant.
But,technology continues to improve, and this site has no database or github for continuing to update with new tech or to fill in the gaps.
This website format also makes it difficult to do other forms of analysis.
I wonder if the authors would make the data available in a knowledge graph form.
ttoinou
Great article. There was a puzzle game called doodle god on ios 10+ years ago where you would combine basic elements to form the next one, etc. in a tree fashion. We could use the same game concept and gamify the tech tree
haddr
There is this theory of „adjacent possible”, that quite well explains why the technology develops the way it does. Some enabler technologies or inventions or even economy are just not just there yet for next thing to happen.
garrettgarcia
I've been wishing that this existed for a long time, and am thrilled to see that it does now!
Something that fascinates me about early technology is that a significant amount of it was invented prior to Homo sapiens.
The link to the actual tech tree is buried In the article: https://www.historicaltechtree.com/