all 11 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 47 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Each of those tasks was done by a fully grown adult. With time those adults had kids, and then those kids did those tasks. Through the generations we replaced those kids with individual machines, and then with more time we put those machines on wheels, and eventually those wheels grew up and became full grown adults.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    Everytime I see any type of industrial machine I think this is some genius shit! I'm so dumb

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    I learned everything I know about combine harvesters from The Wurzels

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago
    [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Machine go brrrr

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    Why wouldn't they watch the videos on a monitor, even a phone or tablet at least?

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Starving people are highly motivated.

  • source
  • 53 comments in c/science_memes@mander.xyz view that post
    [–] 166 points 10 months ago* (26 children)

    Well, the first step was making a machine that does every step of the process to make it easier. Then you combine those machines into one big machine, hence "combine".

    No one starts from zero and builds a machine like this. Each of those processes was its own problem that got solved first.

  • source
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 78 points 10 months ago (11 children)

    People don't seem to understand that complicated things don't just get invented out of nowhere. They almost always are the result of many steps along the way, each of which was useful in its own right.

    And that's why it's common that multiple people invent the same thing at the same time. Like the theory of evolution, or the telephone. These things may be complicated, but all of the building blocks were created over a long time, and suddenly, their invention or discovery becomes inevitable.

    Not to say that it never happens that people make large leaps, but it's rare.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    To many "smart" people have stood up and taken the credit for hundreds of others and generations of work.

    We have been sold and buy the idea that there a supermen out there that are beyond clever and capable when they are just the result of their environment and resources from others. And now history is looked at through that lenses looking for singulars where there is plural.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    To many “smart” people have stood up and taken the credit for hundreds of others and generations of work.

    Like CEOs taking credit for all the work their engineers did.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Same with evolution. "The eyeball is too complex to evolve as a whole unit!" Well, that's absolutely correct. First, start with a patch of light sensitive cells, iterate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago

    Even all those different little inventions had plenty of steps along the way, and almost all of them were viable during its time.

    The greatest strength humanity has had to create ingenious machines wasn't intelligence.

    It was time and manpower.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago (11 children)

    Ok let's start with one. How does one even start to make a self-propelling machine that cuts wheat stalks at ground level?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 42 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Make a self propelled machine and a machine that cuts grass and smoosh them together.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    We did two things first:

    First we made a (simple) machine that cuts wheat stalks at ground level (scythe).

    Second we made a (complex) machine that is self-propelling.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    I'm gonna guess there was an intermediate step where we put mechanical scythes on horses or something

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago

    Well first there's the cutting technology. Scything is ancient. Industrial production of push mowers using cylinder blades were developed in the 1800s and the more modern gas powered rotary cutters came along in the 19th century with many other self-propelled and automated mechanisms. This started with coal and wood fired agricultural equipment used for processing, like threshing and winnowing. As internal combustion engines (gas powered) developed in the 20th century more equipment and processes could be incorporated on-site and in-field.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago

    How does one even start to make a self-propelling machine that cuts wheat stalks at ground level?

    You look at a horse-drawn mowing machine like this and start thinking about how you could do something similar without the horse.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

    Stationary processing of grain. Then stationary automated processing of grain. Then add a cutting machine (from harvesting hay) and self-propelling and you've got your combine harvester.

    The loading thing? A extruder on a swivel, old tech.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    When I was taught that Philo Farnsworth, a "farmer" who "invented" television by using the idea of plowing a field in parallel lines to display an image, I was completely dumbfounded. A farmer figured out how to build a vacuum tube, fire an electron beam, deflect it at phosphor-coated surface, and do so in lines, varying the intensity, to display an image? This simplistic "history" skips about 50 years of progress in vacuum tube design and absolutely fascinating mechanical television.

    On that note, The Upright Thinkers by Leonard Mlodinow is a good book about scientific progress, and really drives a point about incremental nature progress.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 47 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    They continuously improved on every single step in the process. What you see now are the descendants of many generations of harvesters.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    This reminded me of a mini documentary on helping subsistence farmers in India. Since the farms were small and irregular, they couldn't recommend powered harvesters to be shared. They basically squatted down and used sickles. It was a whole family affair as kids as small as 3 were needed to harvest quickly and get it to market.

    They introduced scythes with baskets to catch and softly drop the grain or whatever to the side.

    this isn't that documentary, but it does show the slow going of using a sickle at first. It then shows how much faster the scythe is.

    The documentary also showed how some were reluctant as the kids were free and basically the sickle was how it had always been done. So they had contests of 5 farmers against one guy on the scythe and a kid picking up the wheat and putting it on a cart. I think it was 30 meters long. The scythe had the job finished and helping the kid finish putting the grain in the cart before the other farmers had gotten halfway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child)

    Scythes require more specific wind and moisture conditions compared to sickles (as do combines), but they do save a ton of work. My favorite scythe fact is that there is an even faster but more dangerous version called the Flemish Scythe, that is one-handed. From "The Scythe Book":

    ...John Gerard, in his seven- teenth-century Herball, recorded an accident wherein the mower:

    made a wound to the bones, and withall very large and wide, and also with great effusion of blood; the poore man crept upon this herbe (Clownes Wound wort or All-heale), which he bruised with his hands, and tied a great quantity of it unto the wound with a piece of his shirt, which presently stanched the bleeding, and ceased the paine, insomuch that the poore man presently went to his dayes work againe, and so did from day to day, without resting one day until he was perfectly whole, which was accomplished in a few dayes.

    Fucking hardcore.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 39 points 10 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 15 points 10 months ago* (5 children)

    This, and the fusion thing that turns mercury into gold, are borderline witchcraft.

    EUV is etching runes onto stones and trapping lightning and demons inside

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    They are awesome, and they cost an awesome amount of money.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 10 months ago

    It is strange that many, many farmers are simultaneously millionaires and dirt poor. Not that it's a problem exclusive to farmers by any means, but ya know. Slim operating margins.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 10 months ago

    Farmers are always looking to make their job easier and they have a few months during the winter to build stuff.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Combines ain't that complex. But they are fussy to run. Growing up on a farm you learn to fix them at a pretty young age. I've even owned one myself, a well used Case I bought from an Uncle. I can close my eyes and "see' every stinking moving part on any of the combines we owned. And I can still remember how access the parts and fix them.

    Personally, I hate balers far more.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    Yeah, I would say they are intricate (lots of sections and moving parts) but not complex (hard to comprehend). Like, I think with the right manual and some time I could learn to fix it, but I'm never going to do the same with, say, a helicopter.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago
    [–] 16 points 10 months ago

    Don't worry, John Deere will find a way to fuck it up.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    I’ve gone down this rabbit hole, combine harvesters might be the most advanced piece of technology ever created, they’re fucking insane. Space travel seems simpler than the engineering that goes into those mother fuckers, a computer is child play in comparison.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    They're very cool and intricate indeed. But, as someone who grew up on a farm and is pretty familiar with combines: you're drastically underestimating the engineering challenges in computers and space travel.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    The thing is, I understand computers and space travel, it’s all stuff that makes sense when it’s explained to me properly. I’ve watched like six long form documentaries/explanations of combine harvesters and as far as I’m concerned it’s fucking wizard shit. It’s too complicated to actually work properly, it’s doing way too many entirely different things at once. There are entire multi stage manufacturing plants with less complex engineering requirements, it should jam up or break down two seconds after starting, it spits in the face of Ockham.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago

    A computer is many orders of magnitude more intricate, technologically advanced, etc. A modern computer chip requires incredibly complex 3D labyrinths of different materials that have walls that are nanometers thick.

  • source
  • parent
  • 35 comments in c/greentext@sh.itjust.works view that post
    [–] 118 points 1 year ago

    How? Generations of clever people ignored the naysayers who told them, "just do the work like the rest of us, you lazy bastard."

  • source
  • [–] 61 points 1 year ago

    The only reason people go hungry is because of policy.

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 38 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    There's a theory in my family.

    You have true farmers, then you have factory farms. Factory Farms are not just for animals. They exclusively produce cash crop, they exclusively optimize profit, they also do hardly any of the work themselves. They'll be in a combine, sure. But combines are quite literally automatic nowadays, so it becomes a second office where they're negotiated deals and labor and contracts and taxes.

    The true farmers on the other hand? Way back when, before Monsanto and Tyson, farm communities took care of specific jobs for specific farms because one of those farmers found a really good way to do it, or is just much more efficient.

    That left a little more time for each of the farmers to work on something they were skilled with, or do a hobby even.

    Guess what was a popular hobby amongst farmers? Electric Scale Trains. These farmers also invented and designed and engineered a lot of these tools and equipment, because they had to repair their machines quicker than a service tech could come out.

    So you get robust engineering out of a Farmer. Then the Factory Farmer comes in and says "Hey, I got a friend named John Deer who could mass produce these, and the non-presceint Farmer said cool."

    BAM innovations stifled.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Seems history shows innovations came from many individual sources but those Factory Farms weren't a thing. Corporations did help develop ideas into products but large scale Monsanto style factory farms weren't a thing during the time combine harvesters were being invented.

    It seems quite the opposite: the efficiency of the combine harvesters made factory farms much more likely.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I think you might have missed the point of my story.

    Farmers were the engineers designing these things. Because that's all the kind of farmers there was.

    Now we have Factory Factory farms, but there are still some small farmers doing this stuff. We don't have many true farmer/engineers left. And it's bad for all of us.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    It works by doing all the hard work while John Deere screws you over even harder than Monsanto.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Do Americans really not have any other options than John Deere? I hear constant complaints online about the company but when my parents used to farm I don't remember them ever having any of their equipment.

    I remember my father used to complain more about the quad bike being hard to repair than any of the farming equipment (I seem to remember it being really hard to find new tires for it).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    That's technology, innovate a difference

    A feat of engineering, a system made efficient

    There isn't a condition, complication, or a vision

    Where the answer ain't to build a more sophisticated widget, idjit

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    David Macauley’s illustration in the book The Way Things Work is how I learned about the beauty of the combine harvester

    Clearly a Promethean device

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    If you can reliably predict what's going to be in your field, it's only a matter of time before you work out a machine for harvesting it.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    The aliens sought out new challenges after tiring of pyramids.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    If you think they're complicated to have them described to you, you should try fixing one of the fuckers when it breaks down in the middle of the night.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    To be fair, virtually everything is ten to a hundred fold more complicated in the dark.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    And mosquitos are chewing on your ass.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Unreasonable people anon.

    Reasonable people adapt to the world around them, use a scythe and get on with things, unreasonable people adapt the world to suit themselves. All progress is from unreasonable people.

    Ps Can't remember who said it.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    They're useful if I've got 20 acres and you've got 43!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bjvffx-h2KM

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Better question, why did it take us so long to come up with this.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Materials science and the ability to harness adequate energy to drive such a machine. IOW, lighter, stronger metals, durable metals, bearings, lubricants, tire materials, quality fuels, engine power which is dependent on all the aforementioned, and all of that tied to close tolerance mass manufacturing.

    We really take for granted how fast and precise manufacturing has become.

    Even simple things we don’t think of. For instance - Cars from the ‘80s and before had interior materials that sustained UV damage and you’d end up a with fading, cracked dash, cracking seats, etc. Windshields would crack super easy from a rock chip. Now? The vast majority of car interiors remain in very good condition other than usage wear. I’ve taken multiple rock hits on windshields with many different cars and had zero cracks.

    Materials science is amazing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    Just engineering in general.

    While my "google-fu" for finding resources is garbage, I have a cousin with nearly encyclopedic knowledge of engineering reference material. He's sent me things for figuring out where is safe to hang hammock chairs, acceptable bolt dimension/materials for car applications, and a bunch of other crazy niche things.

    That reference material for all this just exists and is generally just accessible still blows my mind.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    From my perspective this "pinnacle of human ingenuity" is actually a farse, because it relies on a monoculture and is therefore unsustainable in the long term.

    Don't get me wrong, the engineering is cool and I understand how important the mass production of food has been up to this point in human history, but there is another side of the story. The advent of machinery like this is part of why modern farmers use so many pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers - a monoculture depletes the soil of its nutrients and decreases natural pest control, necessitating the use of chemicals. The use of those chemicals has in turn driven huge ecosystem changes that we are only just beginning to understand the impact of (such as mass pollinator die-offs, changes to soil microbiology, pollution of fresh water sources, pollution of cropland soil, and more) as well as impacting humans in ways we don't understand since some of those chemicals make their way into our bodies.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Any farming will deplete the soil of nutrients over time simply because we harvest things from the plants and ship them elsewhere and don't ship the waste or replacement nutrients back. Especially considering the insect die off, which at least moved some nutrients at random, though still not likely enough to make up for removing them at an industrial scale.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Came in to make a similar comment. Giant machines like this are a huge part of the problem in a number of ways. Their rigid design limits the kinds of environments that you can farm on, if you're trying to run at competitive scale. It also limits you to monocropping as you said, whereas a complex polycultural system would both more efficiently build soil over time, but naturally deters pests if properly designed and maintained.

    They also contribute to soil infertility by overly compacting soils due to their mammoth weight. And they are not at all cheap either, and one of the contributing factors to so many farmers ending up hopelessly in debt.

    The bottom line is that industrial farming is not sustainable, and like it or not, homescale and small community agriculture is going to have to play larger roles in our lives if we want to have any hope of staving off famine as resources become more scarce.

    https://www.appropedia.org/Welcome_to_Appropedia

    https://farmhack.org/welcome

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)