Strife and innovation - why Discord might be what Scadrial needs

[radren Spearman]

Maybe it's presumptuous to assume that the industrial revolution on Scadrial was directly caused by Autonomy's intervention. But both Autonomy and Kelsier talk about how struggle creates the right environment for innovation to flourish. Electricity was brand new in Alloy of Law and by The Lost Metal, it was everywhere. Radios and photographs were common. The Set even had colored motion pictures. That's a lot of advancement in 7 years or so. I think Harmony knows that by allowing Preservation to be the dominant force, he has made things too easy. There has been a lot of talk here about Discord. Harmony tells Kelsier that he will take his suggestions into consideration. I wonder if Harmony makes the conscious decision to become Discord knowing that the chaos it causes will provide the tension needed to continue the pace at which Scadrial had advanced technologically during Autonomy's intervention.

Edited November 17, 2022 by radren

[RustingWithYou Spearman]

"His name shall be Discord, and they shall love him for it."

Harmony becoming Discord is going to lead to a lot of strife and chaos, and a lot of rapid progress for Scadrial.

[teknopathetic Dawnsinger]

36 minutes ago, RustingWithYou said:

"His name shall be Discord, and they shall love him for it."

Harmony becoming Discord is going to lead to a lot of strife and chaos, and a lot of rapid progress for Scadrial.

One could argue the Malwish already have been living under Discord for the last 150 years. What has Harmony done for them? 

[ConfusedCow Arbiter]

Does strife produce innovation?  Aren't peace, plenty and partnership as likely to produce advancement as hatred, hardship and horror?  I'd be interested if anybody with a history of science background could chime in as to what the historical record tells us. 

Edited November 20, 2022 by ConfusedCow

[lacrossedeamon Arbiter]

1 hour ago, ConfusedCow said:

Does strife produce innovation?  Aren't peace, plenty and partnership as likely to produce advancement as hatred, hardship and horror?  I'd be interested if anybody with a history of science background could chime in as to what the historical record tells us. 

They say necessity is the mother of invention. But maybe just read Guns, Germs, and Steel although that focuses more on what causes civilization to form and succeed rather than what pressures specifically cause it to progress later on.

[Oltux72 Rambleman]

On 18.11.2022 at 5:25 AM, teknopathetic said:

One could argue the Malwish already have been living under Discord for the last 150 years. What has Harmony done for them? 

Provided them with a metal that underlies a lot of their technology. Given them access to interstellar travel in form of a perpendicularity.

[lacrossedeamon Arbiter]

What have the Romans ever done for us?

The aqueduct.
What?
...they, they gave us the aqueduct...
Yes, they did give us that, that's true.
And sanitation

Yes, that too. The aqueduct I'll grant is one thing the Romans may have done.
And the roads, now they're all new. And the great wines too.
Well, apart from the wines and fermentation
And the canals for navigation. Public health for all the nation.
Apart from those, which are a plus, what have the Romans ever done for us?
The baths.
What?
...the public baths...
Oh, yes, yes...
The public baths are a great delight, and it's safe to walk in the streets at night. Cheese and medicine, irrigation, Roman law and education, the circus for our delectation and the gladiation.
Well, apart from medicine, irrigation, health, roads, cheese and education, baths and the Circus Maximus, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Brought peace.
Oh, shut up!

Edited November 20, 2022 by lacrossedeamon

[bmcclure7 Arbiter]

5 hours ago, ConfusedCow said:

Does strife produce innovation?  Aren't peace, plenty and partnership as likely to produce advancement as hatred, hardship and horror?  I'd be interested if anybody with a history of science background could chime in as to what the historical record tells us. 

 A major in history and  Plenty is definitely good for innovation,  Peace not so much, strife is much better (Notice I said Strife not war, this is intentional)

Edited November 20, 2022 by bmcclure7

[Kasimir Nightwatcher]

8 hours ago, ConfusedCow said:

Does strife produce innovation?  Aren't peace, plenty and partnership as likely to produce advancement as hatred, hardship and horror?  I'd be interested if anybody with a history of science background could chime in as to what the historical record tells us. 

3 hours ago, bmcclure7 said:

 A major in history and  Plenty is definitely good for innovation,  Peace not so much, strife is much better (Notice I said Strife not war, this is intentional)

The flipside of what @bmcclure7 says is essentially what Bret Devereaux terms the Fremen Mirage: the idea that difficult conditions produce what it takes for civilisations or a people to flourish, while 'ease makes decay.' There's some level on which necessity yeah, is the mother of invention, and that's probably what people are thinking about. My primary training is in the history and philosophy of science and technology, and I'd largely agree with him. Part of it I think boils down to what you think about when you say 'innovation' - do you mean invention? Do you mean science? (These are not necessarily co-occurring: there are inventors who aren't particularly theorists.) There's also a further question here about what you consider strife - dissenting views are great for science (is that strife?), though this claim needs to be qualified further. War time? Sooooort of, sort of not.

Because if you're thinking especially about science, my training biases are clear, but I'd argue significant turning points included Renaissance-era shifting of the standards of scientific evidence (a lot of papers have been written about Galileo and Copernicus, but what's key to understanding a lot of the contemporary disputes back then is that it's not just about 'faith' - it's the idea of observational data against Aristotelian conceptions of what gets to count as evidence in science, and what doesn't; what gets to count as a convincing argument, and what doesn't. Adopting the idea of empirical experimentation took quite a while, beyond just the Baconian formulation. And social structures like the Royal Society, places where thinkers get patronage and are able to freely discourse with peers - all of these structures which paved the way to modern science also created environments in which these things got to flourish. And I'd argue you don't have that without a base level of plenty. There's a reason many of the early Royal Society dabblers were, functionally, gentleman scientists, and that's sort of the model we see with Wax and Navani here. (Note that I'm making very broad strokes characterisations here: a lot of the devil is in the details.)

The Golden Age of Arab/Islamic Science is a classic example: between the 8th to the 14th centuries, Islamic civilisation flourished, and became a centre where knowledge (and yes, some of it proto-scientific) was collected, transmitted, added to, translated, and just innovated. We have thinkers like al-Haytham, who wrote on optics and physics, and very very famous Ibn Sina who made significant developments to many fields, including medicine and surgery (under the Latinised name Avicenna.) It helps when you're wealthy enough to fund scholarship and large libraries like the House of Wisdom in Baghdad (later sacked by the Mongols), and to invest in your education system and research centres.

It's often credited with collecting Greco-Roman knowledge, translating it, and preserving it for transmission back to Europe during the Middle Ages, but really, that's slightly unfair to them as many Islamic thinkers obvious interacted with Greco-Roman thought, and added onto it. (Note that a lot of these references say 'philosophy' - remember that they don't yet have our modern conception of science. This is an anachronism we shouldn't be projecting onto the past. 'Natural philosophy' or just 'philosophy' will go into some of the questions scientists today desire to answer.)

In the case of the Golden Age, it falls to war. Peace and plenty were very good for the sciences. And it is the scholarship done by all these scholars working in the Golden Age of Arab Science that eventually transmits back to medieval Europe.

Disclaimer I used to be able to cite a lot more texts, but it's been a while since I did the undergrad modules properly. It's in my notes somewhere, but the history of science is highly fascinating, worth reading, and Whig history of science without attention to context or the social dimensions of science, in my view, does it disrespect.

Also, I do think the Islamic Golden Age was very fascinating  I spent many a month in my undergrad reading Ibn Sina and others. Here's a cool picture of al-Haytham discussing the structure of the human eye.

[ScadrianTank Bloodsealer]

10 hours ago, ConfusedCow said:

Does strife produce innovation?  Aren't peace, plenty and partnership as likely to produce advancement as hatred, hardship and horror?  I'd be interested if anybody with a history of science background could chime in as to what the historical record tells us.

It's more about the general drive to overcome nature than the constant struggle against anything specific like war, natural disasters, or alien invasions.

I don't want to search for actual quotes, but Saze says so himself in Shadows (I think )when talking about how Basin's perfect climate stunted North's growth.

WW2 is the most extreme example in this case because the need to produce a lot of... everything really, drove people to develop techniques, processes, and alternative solutions.

But in general, a people with a reason to see what's on the other side of the ocean will get there faster than those who do it out of curiosity.

[Kitch Lighteyes]

I was fully expecting the bomb to go off at the end of TLM, or some kind of twist that Sazed was pushing for a disaster to jump start the basin. Either Sazed fully aware of it coming, or Ruin pushing through to act more.

 

Ever since Alloy of Law where Harmony talked to Wax for the first time in the book and went on a rant about how things have been too easy and civilization has progressed too slowly I've been waiting for the Ruin side to poke out...but maybe we'll see more of that in Era 3.  But there was no big Harmony twist that I was hoping for.

 

That was probably my biggest disappointment for this book. In the end Harmony was just another character along for the ride trying to figure out what was going on with Autonomy.  No grand plan, no deep thoughts, no real big twists. Just a dues ex machina that provided some supplies for the finale

That may be the point though....Sazed is not a good Shard right now. Era 2 may have been about showing off how overwhelmed he is, and Era 3 will be about some culminations of his grand plans (Safely introducing Mistborn without the possibility of them becoming another Lord Ruler) to set up Scradial to be a force in the Cosmere to not be steamrolled 

 

[bmcclure7 Arbiter]

4 hours ago, Kitch said:

I was fully expecting the bomb to go off at the end of TLM, or some kind of twist that Sazed was pushing for a disaster to jump start the basin. Either Sazed fully aware of it coming, or Ruin pushing through to act more.

 

Ever since Alloy of Law where Harmony talked to Wax for the first time in the book and went on a rant about how things have been too easy and civilization has progressed too slowly I've been waiting for the Ruin side to poke out...but maybe we'll see more of that in Era 3.  But there was no big Harmony twist that I was hoping for.

 

That was probably my biggest disappointment for this book. In the end Harmony was just another character along for the ride trying to figure out what was going on with Autonomy.  No grand plan, no deep thoughts, no real big twists. Just a dues ex machina that provided some supplies for the finale

That may be the point though....Sazed is not a good Shard right now. Era 2 may have been about showing off how overwhelmed he is, and Era 3 will be about some culminations of his grand plans (Safely introducing Mistborn without the possibility of them becoming another Lord Ruler) to set up Scradial to be a force in the Cosmere to not be steamrolled 

 

 Personally I think we could still see this  Happen in era 3. It might be What creates discord, Harmony forcing to change himself in order to prevent nuclear war.  We never saw a fulfillment of the prophecy in the 1st part of the book after all. So I think discord and the return of the ash is A setup for era 3. 

[Jaythree Skaa]

Quote

It's more about the general drive to overcome nature than the constant struggle against anything specific like war, natural disasters, or alien invasions.

I think a good example of this is the situation that led to the Dust Bowl. For a long time in the US, whenever farming in an area became poor, people would move to a new area and start farming there instead. America was viewed as a land of plenty, there was so much great land, why bother trying to work a subpar field when you can go somewhere else and get great results for minimal effort. This led to a severe lack of agricultural skills in a widespread area. Farmers weren't forced to stick around and learn the land.

This is the kind of thing I think Harmony is referring to when talking about people of the Basin didn't have to struggle for anything.

Quote

In the end Harmony was just another character along for the ride trying to figure out what was going on with Autonomy. No grand plan, no deep thoughts, no real big twists. Just a dues ex machina that provided some supplies for the finale

He did tell Kelsier that he had it in hand. Perhaps his grand plan was taking the Basin to the brink of destruction to force them to develop tech, or even just get them in the mindset of working for progress instead of being content with the Basin.

Part of that plan could have been appearing weak to Wax, to ensure that his Sword would perform the tasks required of him. With how he manipulated Wax with Lessie and how casually he lies to Kelsier we know he's not opposed to deception.

[TheTuninator Noble]

My guess is that Sazed will be Discord for most of Era 3, reflecting the "Cold War" conflict storyline, but will flip back to Harmony at the end, in a cosmere-level narrative dovetailing with the resolution of the conflict between the Basin and the Malwish. Seems like that would work out well.

[bmcclure7 Arbiter]

4 hours ago, TheTuninator said:

My guess is that Sazed will be Discord for most of Era 3, reflecting the "Cold War" conflict storyline, but will flip back to Harmony at the end, in a cosmere-level narrative dovetailing with the resolution of the conflict between the Basin and the Malwish. Seems like that would work out well.

No, charging the nature of a shard is more of a end of an era climax. Just like era one ends with the creation of harmony, era 3 (what would  have been era 2) will end with the creation of discord.

[TheoreticalMagic Grand]

I just posted a theory in The Lost Metal Full Book Reactions (Cosmere edition) thread that we could possibly see Sazed's Shard split into two Shards again....something WoBs said is technically possible, but that its unlikely you'd get the same two Shards you started with....and thus end up with Sazed holding Harmony (60% Preservation and 40% Discord) while Kelsier ends up holding Discord (60% Ruin and 40% Preservation). And with two distinct Shards that are both still a blend of two opposing extremes, but not perfectly balanced....both Sazed and Kelsier would be more free than Sazed currently is to act in pursuit of a specific Intent that isn't end-neutral...while still retaining enough of Ruin and Preservation, respectively, that neither would be as in danger of succumbing to a singular Shard's tendencies towards extremism in pursuit of a narrow definition of their Intent.

Interestingly, it strikes me that if I'm on to something here....the Discord spoken of way back in the first trilogy epitaphs....might NOT actually be about Sazed at all, but about Kelsier-as-Discord. And "His name shall be Discord, and they will love him for it" sounds waaaay more like something people might say about Kelsier than Sazed. After all, look at what they say about him and his actions from the first trilogy.

Edited November 21, 2022 by TheoreticalMagic

[kenod Truthless]

On 20-11-2022 at 7:51 AM, lacrossedeamon said:

They say necessity is the mother of invention. But maybe just read Guns, Germs, and Steel although that focuses more on what causes civilization to form and succeed rather than what pressures specifically cause it to progress later on.

Also, might be good to pick a different book (or /r/AskHistorians), since GG&S apparently isn't actually all that accurate, or even good history.

Edit:
A couple of useful run-downs of the book (not written by me):

• https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6meq1k/comment/dk6htc0/
• https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2mkcc3/how_do_modern_historians_and_history/
• https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/historians_views/#wiki_historians.27_views_of_jared_diamond.27s_.22guns.2C_germs.2C_and_steel.22

Edited November 21, 2022 by kenod

[TheTuninator Noble]

14 hours ago, bmcclure7 said:

No, charging the nature of a shard is more of a end of an era climax. Just like era one ends with the creation of harmony, era 3 (what would  have been era 2) will end with the creation of discord.

It's possible, but the end of TLM strongly suggests that Discord will be a thing throughout Era 3, not just at the end.

Edited November 21, 2022 by TheTuninator

[bmcclure7 Arbiter]

3 hours ago, TheTuninator said:

It's possible, but the end of TLM strongly suggests that Discord will be a thing throughout Era 3, not just at the end.

 That's not the impression I got, what are you referring to.

[ConfusedCow Arbiter]

(IMO), The industrial revolution was driven by capitalism and colonialism.  Capitalism and colonialism also create specific kinds of strife.  "Strife leads to progress" sounds an awful lot like "poverty and wealth motivate labor" and "competition creates efficiency" and other capitalist slogans.  I'm suspicious that strife leads to progress is a way of justifying strife.   

Kelsier was born into conflict, an endless, hopeless, horrible conflict.  This business about strife and progress, about needing to compete with the other worlds.  I feel like he misses the fight, like he needs it.  He's a soldier who can't accept the peace.  He must feel so alone, so out of place.  Who is left who understands the skaa vs nobles, the horror of the lord ruler?  

So I'm left wondering whether "strife leads to progress" is an idea that Brandon really believes in.  Or whether this is just Kelsier's damaged perspective on the world.  There is some evidence in Brandon's other works, warbreaker, cytoverse,  and stormlight that he has considered what causes progress from a lot of angles.  On Roshar, There's frequent references to how Taln's sacrifice brings peace and progress, but in ROW Raboniel and Navani make enormous progress through conflict.  We see the conflict drive progress in both the Nahel Bond and fabrial technology.   In Warbreaker, Brandon almost claims that progress creates strife.   A kind of central question in his works.  

[Isilel Dakhor Monk]

3 hours ago, ConfusedCow said:

 

Kelsier was born into conflict, an endless, hopeless, horrible conflict.  This business about strife and progress, about needing to compete with the other worlds.  I feel like he misses the fight, like he needs it.  He's a soldier who can't accept the peace.  He must feel so alone, so out of place.  Who is left who understands the skaa vs nobles, the horror of the lord ruler?  

 

Yes, there is a lot of worry about Harmony's Intents and how Sazed's core personally is affected, but Kelsier as a sliver of Preservation is also influenced by it's Intent. And IMHO, his "every world  a threat" mentality is Preservation Intent going into overdrive in not necessarily constructive ways. For instance, it is fairly likely that that a Cold War with Roshar in Sixth of the Dusk is the result of Kelsier's meddling that we have witnessed in SA. It may have also attracted Autonomy's attention. Those other worlds may be becoming hostile to Ghostbloods for a good reason... Rosharans are certainly developing a justified grudge, due to being a target of _heavy_ interference. 

[Frustration Sliver]

9 hours ago, ConfusedCow said:

(IMO), The industrial revolution was driven by capitalism and colonialism.  Capitalism and colonialism also create specific kinds of strife.  "Strife leads to progress" sounds an awful lot like "poverty and wealth motivate labor" and "competition creates efficiency" and other capitalist slogans.  I'm suspicious that strife leads to progress is a way of justifying strife.

Strife does lead to progrees though. We can see that even on the shard here. The forums where the powers of the cosmere are pushed to their limits, and every possible way to use them is thought about is in the ____ vs ____ topics, not the theory boards.

[Koloss17 Soulcaster]

I would say it depends on what you’re looking to create. If you want military innovations, wartime is when those happen. If you want less murdery  technological advancements, like many inventions during the industrial revolution, I would say having a time of peace gives that. In era 3, it seems very likely that war will be inevitable, and that harmony will need to change to discord to save the planet. Harmony has no place in war, and Sazed’s descisions to literally solve his problems by sending a hyper killer to murder all the problems away makes it clear that an intent change is inevitable and necessary.

[Rorzikel Gyorn]

I don't think suffering itself is helpful, but I do think the justified fear that Autonomy or other outside forces might return to wage war would drive progress. It seems what Sazed wants to trigger is equal parts Space Race and arms race which is different from things like the Fremen concept which is both historically inaccurate and unlikely to produce technological progress.

[Frustration Sliver]

On 11/22/2022 at 9:52 AM, Ookla the Headmuncher said:

I would say it depends on what you’re looking to create. If you want military innovations, wartime is when those happen. If you want less murdery  technological advancements, like many inventions during the industrial revolution, I would say having a time of peace gives that. In era 3, it seems very likely that war will be inevitable, and that harmony will need to change to discord to save the planet. Harmony has no place in war, and Sazed’s descisions to literally solve his problems by sending a hyper killer to murder all the problems away makes it clear that an intent change is inevitable and necessary.

Any military technology has civilian applications.