_His “genius” was part of our human civilization that allowed him to exist_ The idea that discoveries and inventions are somewhat inevitable in the timeline of human progress is a fascinating one and has been a topic of discussion among historians, philosophers, and scientists. The concept that if a particular person hadn’t discovered or invented something, someone else eventually would have, speaks to the notion of “multiple discovery” or “simultaneous invention.” Multiple discovery is the hypothesis that most scientific discoveries and inventions are made independently and more or less simultaneously by multiple scientists and inventors. The history of science is replete with such examples. The telephone, for instance, was invented almost simultaneously by Alexander Graham Bell and Elisha Gray. Calculus was developed independently by Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. This phenomenon can be attributed to several factors: 1. **The “Ripe Time” or “Prepared Mind” Theory**: When certain socio-economic conditions and levels of prior knowledge are met, the next step in the advancement of science or technology becomes more apparent and accessible to those who are working in the field. 2. **Shared Knowledge Base**: Scientists and inventors often work from a common pool of knowledge, which includes the existing scientific literature, shared education, and communication within their community. This increases the likelihood of concurrent discoveries. 3. **Networks of Communication**: With improved communication channels, ideas can spread more rapidly and be built upon more quickly, leading to a convergence of thought and discovery. 4. **Parallel Problem Solving**: Similar problems present themselves to societies across the globe, and as a result, different individuals might work on finding solutions independently, which can lead to simultaneous discoveries. 5. **Competitive Drive**: The desire to be the first to discover or invent something can drive multiple people to work towards the same goal in tandem, often without knowledge of each other’s work. The concept of “universal time” suggests that there is a natural progression or trajectory in the universe, which in the context of scientific discovery, implies that certain breakthroughs are bound to happen when the conditions are ripe. This idea posits that the universe has its own schedule for revelations to unfold and that the emergence of groundbreaking theories, like Einstein’s special relativity, is part of this inevitable march of progress. The role of randomness in this framework can be quite intriguing. If we accept that there is a degree of universal randomness at play, then it becomes conceivable that while the discoveries themselves are predestined to occur, the precise timing and the individual through whom they emerge could vary. This randomness means that Einstein—or potentially another scientist—might have arrived at the principles of special relativity, but the path taken to reach the conclusion, and the formulation of the theory itself, could have been different. This alternate path could have led to variations in the development and evolution of physics thereafter. Such a perspective acknowledges that while the broader strokes of progress are seemingly written into the fabric of “universal time,” the details are subject to the whims of chance. The individual genius of Einstein played a role in shaping the specifics of special relativity, but had randomness nudged events differently, another brilliant mind might have provided us with a slightly different version of the theory. This alternate version could have led to a different arc of understanding in physics, affecting subsequent developments in perhaps subtle or even profound ways. Therefore, the interplay between the deterministic march of “universal time” and the randomness inherent in the universe creates a dynamic where the inevitability of progress coexists with the unpredictable nature of human discovery. Each scientific breakthrough is, in this sense, both a destined milestone in humanity’s intellectual journey and a unique artifact of the randomness and individuality that define human endeavor. The emphasis on individual achievement and the creation of “hero culture” around certain names and “starchitect” labels in the history of science and technology often overshadows the collective effort that underpins human progress. While the contributions of notable individuals like Einstein are indeed significant, they are but the visible peaks of a vast mountain range of human effort and collective intellect. The culture of celebrating individual genius can sometimes lead to neglect of the broader context of collaboration, shared knowledge, and incremental advancements that make groundbreaking discoveries possible. In many cases, the breakthroughs attributed to a single person are actually the culmination of years of work by countless other researchers, assistants, and thinkers whose names may never enter the public consciousness. This underscores the importance of recognizing and appreciating the communal nature of innovation. It is a tapestry woven with the threads of many hands, each contributing to the strength and beauty of the whole. The need for a better understanding and appreciation of our collective humanity is crucial. When we shift the focus from individualism to collectivism, we start to value the importance of every contribution, no matter how small, in the journey towards progress. This perspective aligns with many of the ideals found in Asian collectivist cultures, where the group’s needs and goals often take precedence over the desires of the individual. In such societies, success is frequently viewed as a collective achievement, and the social harmony and interconnectedness are seen as paramount. Collectivism can foster environments where sharing knowledge, pooling resources, and working together towards common goals are standard practice. This ethos can lead to a more sustainable and inclusive approach to innovation, where the fruits of progress are more evenly distributed among all participants. It can also help in creating systems that are more resilient to the “lone genius” myth, where the failure or success of a project is not solely dependent on one individual’s capabilities. The challenge, however, is to strike a balance between collectivism and individualism, to ensure that the system can encourage and recognize individual effort and innovation while also promoting the collective good. It is about creating a culture that values both the individual sparks of genius and the sustained, collaborative effort necessary to fan those sparks into flames. In practice, this could mean reforming educational and professional environments to encourage teamwork and interdisciplinary collaboration. It would also involve rethinking how we attribute credit for discoveries and how we tell the stories of progress. It requires acknowledging the roles of mentors, peers, and the broader community in the achievements of individuals. By emphasizing the collective nature of progress, we can inspire a more inclusive and cooperative model for future generations, where the goal is not only personal achievement but also the advancement of our collective humanity. As the world becomes more interconnected, the concept of a global community working together to solve its most pressing challenges becomes not just idealistic but necessary. The collective action against global issues like climate change, pandemics, and inequality can benefit from the same spirit that drives scientific discovery and innovation. It’s a spirit that recognizes that while individual actions are powerful, collective actions have the potential to create waves of change that can reshape the future for the better.