After reading some comments, I found that the question I mentioned before was still black or white.

As mentioned in a single chapter before, there are too many people with diode thinking, either black or white, and there is no gray area in their eyes.

Some people actually said that I want to carry out institutional changes, industrial revolution, and commercial revolution.

Where can I see it?

Assuming that the traditional small peasant economy is 0%, and during the industrial revolution, when they see that they want to get some scientific enlightenment, their thinking will immediately jump from 0% to 100%.

What is this thinking pattern?

I read comments on the silly, and there are very few people who see intermediate states.

Is there a possibility that there are multiple scales between 0% of the small peasant economy and 100% of the industrial revolution, such as 1% and 2%,

5%, 10%, 30%...

Is it difficult to consider the problem like this?

I said before that there would be no business revolution without the agricultural revolution, and that business could not be carried out in the agricultural era according to the diode thinking model.

In fact, I have another sentence later: only a certain scale of business is available in a few large cities.

Things have never been either this or that. In the agricultural era, there was also commerce, but it was just a small scale; in the commercial revolution and industrial revolution era, there was also a self-sufficient small peasant economy, but it was just a small scale.

The entire development process is to turn 0% of small farmers into 100% of the great development of industry and commerce, and 1% and 2% have been experienced in the middle.

5%...finally reach 100%.

In this long-term dimension of 0-100%, there is a corresponding scale every year, such as 2% in year A, 5% in year B, and C

In the year, epoch-making science and technology, sociological theory, management technology, etc. may appear, and the jump to 20%, and may even reverse the car in the middle, from 30% in D year to 25% in E year.

Is this a way to think about the problem difficult?

I have never had the idea of ​​black and white when I see everything. Why are they either extremely conservative or suddenly jumping to the other extreme and extremely radical?

I wish I could add a speed bump to their minds and let them stop in the gray area between black and white.

There are many places in this book that say "not necessarily", "not necessarily", and "possible" are not without reasons, but perhaps it is a reflection of my personal way of thinking.

There is never any natural thing in the world. For example, in order to solve a certain problem, policy A can be introduced to produce results B, but the final result may be C in the intermediate state, that is, partially achieving the goal, but not fully achieving the goal, and then a new problem arises in this development process—

Even mathematics that can be called truth is just the truth interpreted by the human brain.

Because of A, theorem B is derived, but this A is a human hypothesis and stipulated that mathematics does not necessarily mean truth in the universe.

What the protagonist has to do now is 1% suitable for the social situation and productivity level at that time. Why do so many people think he wants to do 100%?
Chapter completed!