[HN Gopher] Connections by James Burke (1978)
___________________________________________________________________
Connections by James Burke (1978)
Author : graphcalculator
Score : 176 points
Date : 2020-11-26 08:30 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (topdocumentaryfilms.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (topdocumentaryfilms.com)
| UI_at_80x24 wrote:
| 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.
| lqet wrote:
| I wonder if it was produced on film. This would allow a
| remastering, similar to Seinfeld [0].
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFIrsitJW5M
| royjacobs wrote:
| 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.
| lqet wrote:
| I fear that another BBC favorite of mine, How Buildings
| Learn [0], is too modern (90ies) to have been produced on
| film...
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvEqfg2sIH0
| sp332 wrote:
| 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.
| emacsen wrote:
| Don't forget The Day the Universe Changed!
| xbar wrote:
| I strongly agree.
| wegs wrote:
| 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.
| bordercases wrote:
| > 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).
| wegs wrote:
| 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.
| kderbyma wrote:
| It's like his claim continues to ring true even through his own
| works.
| russellbeattie wrote:
| 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.
| WalterBright wrote:
| MU is presented by my Caltech physics professor!
| lqet wrote:
| 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".
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| 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.
| selestify wrote:
| > it seems likely that James Burke more or less created the
| idea too of connectedness across disciplines
|
| Is there a name for this idea?
| fakedang wrote:
| Idk, interdisciplinary?
| selestify wrote:
| That word alone doesn't quite capture the narrative of
| science as something non-linear, meandering and somewhat
| accidental.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| 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.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| _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...
| WalterBright wrote:
| I'd like to give a shout out to Alistair Cooke's "America".
| ghaff wrote:
| 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.
| wegs wrote:
| 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.
| TT3351 wrote:
| The quality is not necessarily there. Anyone can put their
| handheld Egyptian travel footage up on Amazon and call it a
| documentary.
| WalterBright wrote:
| The Western Tradition by Weber is another great series giving
| an overview of world history (but not from a technological
| point of view).
| leoc wrote:
| If you like this then https://thonyc.wordpress.com/ is the hard
| stuff.
| ThrowawayR2 wrote:
| I'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.
| lqet wrote:
| 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: 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].
|
| It's basically the same concept. The German original even
| specifically addresses "Kunste", a term which still had a
| technlogical meaning at that time (as preserved in "Baukunst",
| "Wasserkunst", "kunstlich", etc.)
|
| 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.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Mond_ist_aufgegangen
| voldacar wrote:
| > 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
| leoc wrote:
| > 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.
| [deleted]
| rsj_hn wrote:
| 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.
| space_ghost wrote:
| 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
| djmips wrote:
| > 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.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| 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 ....
| alexvoda wrote:
| Can you elaborate why you suggest we did not?
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| 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
| ]
| WalterBright wrote:
| > 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.
| npunt wrote:
| 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.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| 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).
| joe_the_user wrote:
| _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.
| WalterBright wrote:
| 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.
| makuto wrote:
| 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.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_(TV_series)
| ThrowawayR2 wrote:
| 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?
| selimthegrim wrote:
| In 1989-90 or so he had a much more optimistic special
| (After the Warming) about climate change.
| hindsightbias wrote:
| Optimistic? He ends with the Atlantic Conveyor slowing
| and saying we're screwed because we waited too long.
| nitrogen wrote:
| 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.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| 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.
| ThrowawayR2 wrote:
| 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.
| Sargos wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| lostcolony wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| bhouston wrote:
| 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.
| jeremymcanally wrote:
| 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. :)
| fsewe20 wrote:
| 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...
| koudelka wrote:
| 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
| tbirdny wrote:
| In the youtube interview you linked to he also says he's
| coming out with a new Connections series in Jan 2022.
| interestica wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| WalterBright wrote:
| 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!
| marricks wrote:
| I think ThrowawayR2's comment really makes yours seem a bit
| ridiculous
| WalterBright wrote:
| There's a scene in the series where Burke specifically holds
| up a series of coins and makes the point dramatically.
| alariccole wrote:
| This is the show that sparked me to pursue engineering. Cannot
| recommend it highly enough. The original was a masterpiece.
| stblack wrote:
| Conceivably the Connections series could have had a much longer
| run. I'm sorry it didn't.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I prefer shows that make their point with succinctness and
| brevity. _Connections_ , the original run, was perfect.
| raintrees wrote:
| 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.
| teekert wrote:
| 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...
| Daub wrote:
| 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.
| Alex63 wrote:
| 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.
| aequitas wrote:
| 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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-11-27 23:00 UTC)