It always seemed that viewing history as a series of rigid epochs mirrored the irreparably flawed Marxist view of historical progression. Specifically, the film mentioned the increasingly short periods of advancement viz. the agriculture revolution, industrial revolution, information revolution, and onward. The idea of a new era implies the eclipse of an old era. We shouldn’t be comfortable with that idea.

It seems that advancements in agriculture, manufacturing, and other fields are the result of entrepreneurial innovation backed by a desire of surplus capital to invest in new ideas. The result is an agricultural revolution that didn’t end with the industrial revolution. It lives, becomes increasingly efficient (so long as the government remains at arms length), and produces value for all who choose to participate. It is an industrial revolution that continues, learns how to produce more with fewer resources, creates our standard of living from raw earth, but is hampered by the dead hand of the state. I don’t disagree with this idea in the film. The historical paradigm just needs enhancement.