All of these examples are done by specialist because I don't see many cars being build by dentists.
Even in mankind's beginning specialization existed in the form of hunter and gatherer. This specialization in combination with team work brought us to the top of the food chain to a point where we can strive beyond basic survival.
The people making space crafts (designing and building, another example of specialization) don't need to know how to repair or build a microwave to heat there for food.
Of course everybody still needs to know basic knowledge (how to turn on microwave) to get by.
> All of these examples are done by specialist because I don't see many cars being build by dentists.
I'm not sure how you get from pre-agricultural humans developing fire, to dentists building cars.
I don't doubt that after fire was 'understood', there was specialisation to some degree, probably, around management of fire, what burns well, how best to cook, etc.
But any claim that fire was the result of specialisation seems a bit hard to substantiate. A committee was established to direct Thag Simmons to develop a way to .. something involving wood?
Wheel, the setting of broken bones, language etc - specialisation happened subsequently, but not as a prerequisite for those advances.
> Even in mankind's beginning specialization existed in the form of hunter and gatherer. This specialization in combination with team work brought us to the top of the food chain to a point where we can strive beyond basic survival.
Totally agree that we advanced because of two key capabilities - a) persistence
hunting, b) team / communication.
You seem to be conflating the result of those advancements with "all progress", as was GP.
> The people making space crafts (designing and building, another example of specialization) don't need to know how to repair or build a microwave to heat there for food.
I am not, was not, arguing that highly specialised skills in modern society are not ... highly specialised.
I was arguing against the lofty claim that:
"All progress we've made is due to ever increasing specialization."
Noting the poster of that was responding to a quote from a work of fiction - claiming it was awful - that the author had suggested everyone should be familiar with (among other things) 'changing a diaper, comfort the dying, cooperate, cook a tasty meal, analyse a problem, solve equations' etc.
If you're suggesting that you think some people in society should be exempt from some basic skills like those - that's an interesting position I'd like to see you defend.
> Of course everybody still needs to know basic knowledge (how to turn on microwave) to get by.
The discovery of fire itself was not progress, but how to use it very much is. They most likely didn't have a "discover fire" specialization in the modern sense but I doubt the one first to create a fire starter was afterwards deligated to only collect berries. The discovery and creation of something obviously often comes before the specialization or it would otherwise be impossible to discover and create anything.
>FWIW I don't have a microwave oven.
That was just an example. You still know how to use them hence basic knowledge. Seem like this discussion boils down to semantics
I dispute your foundational claim that discovery of things != progress.
I concur that semantics have a) overtaken this thread, and b) are part of my complaint with OP when they claimed all historical progress was the result of specialisation.
A lot of discoveries come from someone applying their scientific knowledge to a curious thing happening in their hobby or private life. A lot of successful businesses apply software engineering to a specific business problem that is invisible to all other engineers.
