Connections by James Burke (1978)
topdocumentaryfilms.comI'm surprised by how many people are missing the central thesis of Connections. Yes, it was about how technological progress is a web of interlocking discoveries, which is entertaining, but that wasn't the _point_ of it. The first and last episodes of Connections 1 introduce and wrap up the theme of the entire series and it ought to terrify people to the core.
(Warning: spoilers ahead)
The first, "The Trigger Effect" highlights how utterly and irrevocably dependent human civilization is on a broad web of technology and how delicate that web is, the so called "technology trap". Break it and we can expect an astronomical death toll. (We got a tiny taste of this in the supply chain disruptions of COVID-19.) No one wants to think about it or believe it but the breakdown of civilization is actually possible.
The final episode, "Yesterday, Tomorrow and You", ties together the past episodes by pointing out that technological progress is not really controllable or stoppable because of its incremental and interlocking nature. Yet by doing so, we are only deepening our dependence on an ever more delicate web of technology without which we are helpless. Moreover, we don't even know where this unstoppable technological progress is taking us; perhaps a utopia but just as likely a hellscape. (An example of this is the unforeseen societal consequences of the growth of social media or the loss of privacy caused by the web.) It is enough to make one think that the apocalypse preppers aren't entirely wrong.
It is one of the most utterly terrifying and thought provoking concepts I have encountered over a lifetime of gathering knowledge.
IMHO, this is only one of the theses, and not the central one. The central thesis is already hinted at in the subtitle: change and progress are caused by humans either aimlessly playing around with ideas or concepts, possibly from totally unconnected fields, or by creating something entirely different than what they initially set out to do (possibly without even realizing it). Very, very seldomly can change and progress be planned, and therefore it is a pointless endeavor to predict or plan future technologies. In that regard, Burke was certainly a child of its time, as progress through many individual actions (and their recombinations) vs. centrally planned progress is essentially the narrative of the Cold War.
What you are describing is one of two cautionary tales in the series: technological progress will continue to accelerate (because the possible recombinations of existing ideas will grow exponentially), and we will be increasingly dependend on and caught in it. This is not entirely original, but has been lamented over and over again for many centuries before Burke. Just consider this verse of a still popular German lullaby from the 18th century:
It's basically the same concept. The German original even specifically addresses "Künste", a term which still had a technlogical meaning at that time (as preserved in "Baukunst", "Wasserkunst", "künstlich", etc.)We, with our proud endeavour, Are poor vain sinners ever, There’s little that we know. Frail cobwebs we are spinning, Our goal we are not winning, But straying farther as we go [0].PS: a possible corrolary of the central thesis is that we should stop goal-driven research to progress further. But that is of course not true: goal-driven research is exactly what caused a great part of human progress, it's just that the initial goal was almost never met.
> In that regard, Burke was certainly a child of its time, as progress through many individual actions (and their recombinations) vs. centrally planned progress is essentially the narrative of the Cold War.
TBF the fear of systemic collapse was very much on-Zeitgeist in the '70s, too.
> Burke was certainly a child of its time, as progress through many individual actions (and their recombinations) vs. centrally planned progress is essentially the narrative of the Cold War.
I have to disagree - this theme, though reaching its greatest exposition in the 20th century, is not really a modern concept and was discussed by multiple ancient philosophers, including Laozi, Zhuangzi, and at least one Roman writer whose name escapes me at the moment
That the breakdown of civilization is possible is clear from the Bronze Age Collapse, the Collapse of the Roman Empire, The Incas, and pretty much all civilizations that flourished in the past. There are many attempts to study this and many different takes on it, for example Tainter's Collapse of Complex Societies.
I'm not sure that this should be terrifying, civilizations come and go, it's a question of when rather than if, unless you think our civilization is unique among all the others. But I don't think people should stay awake, worrying about civilizational collapse. Our own individual life is much more fragile, so maybe worry about getting enough exercise instead.
But this point doesn't seem very profound or interesting to me, nor do I believe it is Burke's central thesis, which I really believe is about the connections between different technological advances. That is, how does technological process happen, and specifically, how did it happen in the West? History of technology is fascinating to me.
I love this show, it's really a masterwork and a great learning program for young students as well as entertainment for us geezers.
That the breakdown of civilization is possible is clear from the Bronze Age Collapse, the Collapse of the Roman Empire, The Incas,
I would note that "the collapse of the Roman Empire" was a very relative thing. The Western empire split and East empire kept going. Things that seemed collapse-related happened; the Vandals lived by looting civilization for quite a while, population and cities shrank, and Vikings also plundered for hundreds of years. But agricultural society and a number of social/technological innovations continued and in ways made progress. And Eastern Roman/Byzantium continued until conquered by a more advanced society. Mentioning this 'cause the classical collapses of the Maya, precolumbian-society or bronze age societies apparently didn't do this. People left, died, went back to hunting and gathering. Those could be called "true" collapses.
Which is to say that even Roman may have been at the point that a classical Tainter collapse couldn't quite happen. And today, while our create multiple disasters, we seem be well past a point where you could talk about a rise and fall of civilization. What we're looking at is the direction of the explosive expansion of market/technological/social progress. Even a disaster wiping out, say 90% of the human population on earth would see a rebound in a terrifying short period of time, historically speaking.
But anyway, I agree with the rest of what the parent says.
> unless you think our civilization is unique among all the others.
I don't think there is even a question that it's unique considering how far it's come in understanding physics math and engineering. To lose all of that would be a great disaster.
Why do you believe it would be lost? Did we lose a substantial amount of previously developed knowledge when the Greek or Roman civilizations collapsed? I humbly suggest that we did not ....
For the peoples living in the decline and aftermath of those collapses, yes they absolutely lost a lot of knowledge. What was common knowledge or specialized in different trades was replaced with ignorance. They didn't know how to farm in the same way or manufacture the same goods, they didn't understand the principles behind the infrastructure that was now crumbling around them, etc. They lacked the engine of broadly perpetuating knowledge we call civilization. Sure, there were individuals in certain places that possessed a fair amount of knowledge, but that knowledge was not widely distributed, and thus it was fragile.
For those collapsed civilizations, it was only that there were sufficient remaining resources in the earth and that their civilization was geographically limited that after centuries and many injections of knowledge from elsewhere that they were able to slowly bounce back, to rediscover what they lost.
The risk today is that we're so interconnected, we've extracted so much of earth's resources, and we've set ourselves on a path towards permanent environmental change, that we may not get another chance at civilization. It may be we recede back to ignorance permanently.
Yes, that is a risk, but ...
1) the amount of valuable resources sitting above ground is now immense. What's currently missing is a good way to "harvest" them. Necessity being the mother of invention ...
2) Problems with "sufficient remaining resources" are only really relevant if population levels do not decline dramatically. It seems likely to me the civilizational collapse in our era would also be accompanied by substantial population declines, some through the death of the living, some through reduced life expectancy of newly born people, some through reduced birth rates.
3) In the long run, it doesn't matter if individuals lose knowledge, only if the knowledge becomes lost to all and needs to be discovered anew (from the world, rather than from some sort of cultural artifact).
> Did we lose a substantial amount of previously developed knowledge when the Greek or Roman civilizations collapsed?
We lost an enormous amount of knowledge in those time frames.
It took six hundred years for the Romans to reach the same technical level as the Athenians. It then took almost one thousand years for the Italians to again reach the same level as the Romans (this time being greatly increased by the shenanigans of Catholic church).
That was the whole point of the rediscovery of "classical" knowledge from the "ancients" in the Renaissance.
> It took six hundred years for the Romans to reach the same technical level as the Athenians.
When we speak of Ancient Greek technical innovations, we're usually talking about the Hellenism era. That was after Athens had begun to wane as a major intellectual center, and much closer in time to the Romans' ascent in the Mediterranean.
I think we need to differentiate between several different things:
* the social organization and structures required for technologically complex societies * the knowledge required for certain technologies * the loss (or otherwise) of knowledge by humanity, as opposed to local loss of knowledge
When Copernicus was working out the solar centric system, he was using 1000 year old star charts dating to Ptolmey. They were the best Europe had at the time. The Alfonsine tables were just being compiled and printed as Copernicus was working.
Can you elaborate why you suggest we did not?
Mostly the Arabic civilization(s) next door, which managed to retain (and extend) much (not all) of the knowledge of the Greco-Roman civilizations for several centuries.
[EDIT: Along with various libraries throughout Europe that also acted as repositories for Greco-Roman knowledge ]
> repositories for Greco-Roman knowledge
True, but a lot of that stuff was re-invented only to be later discovered that the Greeks/Romans had done it first.
There's a wonderful podcast [1] on Youtube that deep-dives into the collapse of various historical civilizations.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCT6Y5JJPKe_JDMivpKgVXew
I second this recommendation. Really well done - I'm on the Sumerian civilization episode. The episode on the Khmer Empire was outstanding.
I've been cognizant of that for a long time. I figure if civilization collapsed, the human die-off would be something like 99%.
Just think of things like cars. It's fairly straightforward to keep cars pre-1980 on the road even if the manufacturer is no longer making parts for it. A craftsman can still make the parts.
But more modern cars? Fuggeddabootit. Watchagonna do with the computer systems? Write a few million lines of code? You can't even buy the chips anymore.
I disagree. I think the point of the show is to illustrate how technology progresses. You could say one piece of it is about how we are reliant on it, and not in control of it, but I'd say overall, the show is optimistic about technology and celebrates innovation.
Edit: The Wikipedia article [0] does have a good summary, which I think makes us both right: There are really a collection of theses, none of which in my opinion dominate the show, except possibly the unplanned nature of technological evolution.
Take a look at the scene in the first episode while discussing the consequences of being in a scenario where one needs to escape the technology trap where he asks the viewer whether they are willing to kill to ensure their survival.
Take a look at the scene about 42 minutes into the last episode where technological artifacts are being smashed to Wagnerian music and listen to what he says just beforehand.
Does any of that sound optimistic?
If I remember right he said in a later interview that he regretted the alarmism in the first series. I believe it was an interview/presentation where he was demoing his idea of a global knowledge web, but do not recall where I watched it.
In 1989-90 or so he had a much more optimistic special (After the Warming) about climate change.
Optimistic? He ends with the Atlantic Conveyor slowing and saying we’re screwed because we waited too long.
I get the way Burke tied together all ten episodes of the first season and put a bow on it.
I'm not convinced though as to how terrified I ought to be. I understand that there is a complexity and inter-connect-edness in our present day society, but the fear of nuclear, mutual annihilation is the part of the original series that seems the most dated.
I suppose I choose to feel a little more optimistic. I consider the people in the first episode, when all of greater Manhattan lost power, that gathered, celebrated, and ate a birthday cake by candlelight.
Civilization won't break down. Though there may be momentary, brief interruptions.
This is just my opinion but, as I said, people don't want to think about it or believe it. The pandemic should be a wake up call, both in terms of demonstrating supply chain disruptions and in terms of people refusing to wear masks and those ignoring shelter-in-place directives.
Let's just take one more non-war example: Another Carrington level solar storm is an inevitability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrington_Event). Imagine a global power and network outage for an indeterminate period of time and what it's effects would be.
I would use the Pandemic to argue the exact opposite really. It's the worst disaster most people have seen in their lifetimes but it hasn't caused civilization to break down. For a lot of people life hasn't even changed that much. We are more resilient than many people think.
Oh, I think for most people it's changed quite a bit. It accelerated WFH adoption by at least two decades. The knock on effects of transportation, city planning, and the demographic effects of people moving due to no longer needing to be so close to their jobs, we've only begun to see.
That said, I agree that it still points to the opposite conclusion - civilization has not ended, but has changed dramatically. Same as every other time.
Full seasons of this show are available on the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/ConnectionsByJamesBurke/
I've been meaning to watch more of them...maybe I'll get around to it over the holiday weekend. :)
How is the resolution of these versions? Watching on YT has been painful.
Connections, Connections 2, and Connections 3 are gold-mines of information. The information density is incredible, and it's enjoyable to watch.
The show holds up very well given it's age, but the image quality is especially difficult to watch on modern LCD screens.
I wonder if it was produced on film. This would allow a remastering, similar to Seinfeld [0].
In that era typically only things recorded in studios would be video, the rest would be film. So Connections could certainly he remastered, and I hope the BBC does so. Some of their older documentaries, like Ascent of Man, already got that treatment.
I think it was on film because it was released only a year later in the US. That was very difficult for shows on tape because of the 50Hz-vs-60Hz difference in video formats.
I fear that another BBC favorite of mine, How Buildings Learn [0], is too modern (90ies) to have been produced on film...
Don't forget The Day the Universe Changed!
I strongly agree.
I can't recommend this series often enough. Even though it's over 40 years old, the problem it describes and the questions it raises are more relevant than ever. Besides a complex electricity network we now have internet and all it interconnected systems, an ever more complex electricity network due to new suppliers (rural solar) and global trading networks.
Back in 2017 there was a kickstarter to fund a connections app, it didnt hit the goal and i havent heard anything since. I remember he was on Dan Carlins podcast talking about it. Anyone know what became of the project?
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/504632459/james-burke-c...
I really want a rerelease of the original shows in higher quality. That might be the movement that spurs public interest for things like this app. I'm not sure of the quality of the original stock film, but it could be used to make a new high def release. I actually convinced my instructor in undergrad to show it for a "history of science" course. Perhaps the BBC could officially open up the rights entirely so that it can be used as a general teaching tool (might be near impossible - but the music, often a major rights hurdle for these aged rereleases, seems like it was all originally composed for the show). I would love a video like this to be augmented - something akin to the pop-up video series. You could link or show associated information during playback. I actually had something like that as part of my Master's thesis final project. It could potentially be an engaging learn-from-home project.
I don't think it's exactly connected to the kickstarter, but in this[1] interview with James from May, he talks about how he's currently working on the K-Web[2].
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUb6Sv-rUv0
[2] http://k-web.org
In the youtube interview you linked to he also says he's coming out with a new Connections series in Jan 2022.
Good childhood memories of this program. A thoroughly engaging view of how ideas cascade through time, how small changes can evolve into large ones. It was a big influence on how I lecture.
Same here. Good memories. And the companion book is still on my shelf. So interesting to see how modern inventions depend on a network of connected ideas.
This is the show that sparked me to pursue engineering. Cannot recommend it highly enough. The original was a masterpiece.
I see a lot of similar stuff on Youtube these days.
A recent Economics Explained walked through wealth inequality in some Scandinavian countries (TL;DR: it's high). This is different from income inequality, which is quite low. It walked through the wealth of Charlene de Carvalho-Heineken, who has a net worth of $13B, by virtue of having inherited Heineken. Her family bought (not founded) Heineken 200 years ago, and the family fortune dates back a half-millennium.
There are really neat documentary channels like that. I'm not downplaying Burke, who was brilliant, but two bits of progress:
- In 1978, he didn't have the Internet. Research is much easier today.
- In 2020, anyone can produce high-quality documentaries. In 1978, you needed a massive investment.
I'm not trying to imply it's easy, but we've gone from where you need a video editing studies, reels of film, and a research team, to where you just need to spend a few years as a super-nerd to pick up the requisite skills, and drop perhaps $2000 on cameras and microphones. Indeed, if you're scrappy, you can do pro-quality with just a better cell phone and computer, with a lot more work.
I'd guess a lot of channels were inspired by Connections.
I know Mechanical Universe inspired a lot of (now better) Youtube channels, like 3Blue1Brown. So these early documentaries were pivotal, but we've also come a long ways from there.
If I am not mistaken, you are saying that technical entry barriers into documentary filmmaking are much, much lower today than in 1978, and therefore it is much easier to create such a series today. The former is definitely true, but consider the following:
- "Connections" used a substantial amount of acted historical scenes. Creating them in such a quality (and not some sketchy animation or a re-cut of existing work) is still a challenge today. You need half-decent actors.
- Technical quality is secondary to content. "Connections" is not just a collection of interesting and well-made bits about how technology evolved, there is an entire and compelling theory behind it, which Burke tries to bring accross. Such aspirations, executed with such intellectual and inspirational confidence, need something more than just technical ability and financial resources. Just because paper and ink got much cheaper since the 16th century, we didn't suddenly produce a Shakespeare every 2 years.
So far, I haven't seen any historical documentation on YouTube which even compares to the depth and width of "Connections".
You also, as I recall, had a fair bit of location shooting including places like Navy ships that probably took some producer a bunch of time to arrange. The technical barriers are certainly much much lower--younger interested in film me would have killed for an iPhone much less even a $500-ish videocam--but it still takes a lot of work to film a professional looking documentary.
I can't speak specifically to "historical documentation", but in a field that interests me, which I suppose we could call "music, musicking and music theory", YT is better than anything I'm aware of from TV with the possible exception of the Bernstein lectures.
For a TV station/network/organization to have exposed us to just one of (for example): David Bruce, 12Tone or Adam Neely would be remarkable enough, but we actually get all three and then a whole bunch of others who are in the same general ballpark.
For example, the "David Bennett Piano" channel, produced by a young UK piano player, has a 15 minute segment that is hands-down the best explanation of why many musical cultures settled on dividing the octave into 12 tones. It's better than anything I've ever seen on TV.
It is true that these tend to be shorter and more focused presentations than series like Connections. I'm not sure I see anything inherently wrong with that. It's also true that they don't score always hit it out of the park for every "episode" they produce (unlike much the more collaborative processes that would have led to each episode of Connections). But I'm not sure I see much a problem with that either.
Well, let's consider these one at a time:
> - "Connections" used a substantial amount of acted historical scenes. Creating them in such a quality (and not some sketchy animation or a re-cut of existing work) is still a challenge today. You need half-decent actors.
But is this core to the value? I find a lot of the animated versions, Ken Burns, and stock footage on Youtube to be way more than good enough. It's exactly as you said: It's about the content.
> Just because paper and ink got much cheaper since the 16th century, we didn't suddenly produce a Shakespeare every 2 years.
We kinda did, actually. He's hidden among a massive pile of stuff, but he's there. Brilliant books come out far more frequently than I can read. I'd place many well above Shakespeare, not in fame, but in quality.
> So far, I haven't seen any historical documentation on YouTube which even compares to the depth and width of "Connections".
My favorites are Extra History (history) and 3Blue1Brown (math). I think both have at least the same depth and width, albeit in a different direction.
Agree. I would add too, it seems likely that James Burke more or less created the idea too of connectedness across disciplines, historical events, etc. as opposed to the linear, "homo-disciplinary" approach we were used to. Or at least he brought the idea to the masses in a compelling way.
> it seems likely that James Burke more or less created the idea too of connectedness across disciplines
Is there a name for this idea?
Idk, interdisciplinary?
That word alone doesn’t quite capture the narrative of science as something non-linear, meandering and somewhat accidental.
Connections was savvy in finding faires, working museaums, and access to the BBC's film vaults for providing much (though not all) such footage. Burke describes going to reenactment festivals to film many of the medieval life scenes.
And his journalist background and connections enabled him to have the access necessary to shoot single-take sequences such as this:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=2WoDQBhJCVQ
(Hardly the only impressive on-location scene in his work.)
Agreed with your comments on the primary importance of writing and research. I'd argue that Chris & Evan Hadfield's "Rare Earth" is getting close, Tom Scott is doing quite well, and Derrek Muller's "Veritasium" and Destin Sandlin's "Smarter Every Day" have promise.
Several YouTubers have been picked up by traditional broadcasters/production organisations, notably Hank Green ("Crash Course"), with PBS, and Emily Graslie ("Prehistoric Road Trip"), with the Chicago Field Museum. YouTube as a training and recruiting ground has merits.
One reason Connections is so hard to compare to is that it's pretty incomparable: forty years on we're still discussing it in glowing terms. It was produced by someone well-established and experienced at least within the BBC, and backed by the organisation. Notably, little from either national/public broadcasting or commercial production has even approached it. My short list includes Sagan's Cosmos, Burke's own The Day the Universe Changed, Ken Burns. Daniel Yergin's The Prize. And of course Kenneth Clarke's Civilisation and Jacob Bronowski's The Ascent of Man, which had paved the way for Burke himself. I might include Adam Curtis's works.
The role of the author or creative voice --- a Burke, Sagan, Burns, Bronowski, Clark, Curtis --- cannot be overstated. That talent seems rare, perhaps also the ability to simply get out of its way. Also realising when it's circled too hard back in on itself --- Burke had 2--3 good series in him, but he hasn't matched himself in at least three decades.
Related HN thread with additional recommendations: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2698026
Part of that is a more crowded field: there's more produced, it's harder to get noticed. Part my own near-total avoidance of broadcast television. But I don't think that's all of it.
And yes my HN history shows I'm quite the fan of Burke: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
I'd like to give a shout out to Alistair Cooke's "America".
> In 1978, he didn't have the Internet. Research is much easier today.
Lowering the barrier to entry to anything just makes it easier to create crap. Even when not taken on its own terms, Connections is still a massive achievement given this lack of ease. If you look at the book supplement to the series you can see the depth of research that went into the show.
The Internet making research "easier" is false economy since it's cluttered with misinformation and even more crap. To get good information on the Internet requires more effort that you give it credit for (see the practice of OSINT).
With millions of videos on Youtube, it's sometimes hard to find the top 99.99th percentile, but it's there. I've posted references in other posts.
The better question is if the 99.99th percentile on Youtube maps over, in quantity or quality, the 99.99th percentile of old TV documentaries.
Mechanical Universe is so awesome! It's one of the best series to watch to get an broad understanding of the history of science and science itself. I've watched and rewatched them since college in the 90s. All of the videos are on YouTube and they're still incredible.
Though Connections is entertaining, an afternoon down the Wikipedia rabbit hole on any topic will give you sooo much more information and context than Burke could have dreamed of in 1978. My issue with many of those YouTube channels you're talking about is they do little but read for the viewer (NOT 3Blue1Brown, his work is the gold standard of course).
This isn't a horrible thing, but it would be nice if those channels put a bit more work into synthesizing their content, rather than just regurgitating Wikipedia for views.
MU is presented by my Caltech physics professor!
Poor Goodstein was never the same after the stroke. Incidentally, I have to wonder if he and Jearl Walker ever had a personal rivalry.
Oh, I am so sorry to hear that happened to him. My favorite physics co-professor of Goodstein's was Prof Ricardo Gomez, who pretty much single-handedly saved me from flunking out. Prof Gomez was one of those people who made Caltech a special place.
The Western Tradition by Weber is another great series giving an overview of world history (but not from a technological point of view).
The quality is not necessarily there. Anyone can put their handheld Egyptian travel footage up on Amazon and call it a documentary.
It's like his claim continues to ring true even through his own works.
Loved these series, from the first release around the 70's on Ambrose video (checked them out from the Library), to purchasing Connections 2 from The Store of Knowledge in the San Jose area (long since closed), to the shorter version 3 (updated, but not as many).
Burke has a gift for showing how disparate technologies are actually related - And much to learn along the way.
Helps with games of Trivial Pursuit, too - Good for the holidays :)
Highly recommend.
An interesting point Burke repeatedly made is that the connections were made by people wanting to make money. Gutenberg invented the printing press to make money, the Wrights invented the airplane to make money, Enbrel (first effective treatment for rheumatoid arthritis) was invented to make money.
Free markets for the win!
I think ThrowawayR2's comment really makes yours seem a bit ridiculous
There's a scene in the series where Burke specifically holds up a series of coins and makes the point dramatically.
Cool! As a kid I watched this on Discovery channel and I never learned the name nor found it again afterwards. I remember a connection between smoking and the Medici's in Florence and Migraine...
I absolutely love this program and will heartily recommend it to anyone I meet who seems like they might vaguely be in the audience for it.
Dare I say, it's even better than Cosmos?
If you like this then https://thonyc.wordpress.com/ is the hard stuff.
I loved this show so much as a kid. It was so eye opening and he was such a good educator. Made history and technology progress interesting.
Interesting to see Burke's transformation from "TV idiot" into genius prophet, over 40 years.
> "TV idiot"
Much as I love James Burke, there is a rather funny parody of him from the old "Not The Nine O'Clock News" comedy series in the UK: https://youtu.be/82GUX_NA7AU?t=65
Conceivably the Connections series could have had a much longer run. I'm sorry it didn't.
I prefer shows that make their point with succinctness and brevity. Connections, the original run, was perfect.
Genuinely one of the best TV programs ever made.