| Subject: Re: The Fermi Paradox and SETI Success |
| From: tgdenning@earthlink.net |
| Date: 17/08/2008, 13:43 |
| Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur,alt.sci.seti,alt.sci.planetary,talk.origins |
On Aug 16, 4:02 pm, Paul J Gans <g...@panix.com> wrote:
In talk.origins tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote:
On Aug 15, 10:56 pm, Golden California Girls <gldncag...@aol.com.mil>
wrote:
Paul J Gans wrote:
In talk.origins Mike Dworetsky <platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
"Paul J Gans" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:g84c8g$76p$5@reader1.panix.com...
In talk.origins tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote:
[massive deletions]
Once again, the distinction between correlation and causality must be
explained.
The human population has increased in correlation with technological
innovation. That *does not* mean that if there is a small population,
technology will vanish. Indeed, if the population were to start
dropping tomorrow, it would likely *stimulate* the development of
technology to replace labor.
First-world high-tech high-consumption living standards are perfectly
'sustainable' as long as there are few enough people.
I agree. I suspect it would be far easier to create an
electric generator than to start over with stone age
technology.
After all, how many of us know how to chip stones so as to form
a proper stone age tool? But lots of us know the fundamentals of
building a generator.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
There are archaeologists who specialise in just this area--the best way to
make assorted flint tools with materials at hand (other stones, deer
antlers, etc).
Sure, but more of us can spin a copper loop in a magnetic field.
Where to get the copper?
That's the question. But there are two sci-fi scenarios to play with
here:
1) Post-apocalyptic Earth where everyone dresses like 19th century
street urchins, and there is all the material mess we've made to pick
over, in which case we go directly back to high tech, or at least
somewhere in the 20th century.
2) The more interesting one, in terms of paths and choices. Alens
abduct some of us and after obligatory probing drop us off on a
pristine Earth-identical planet, with say a 2-year food supply. What
would you do---search for sources of flint for knapping, or go
directly to metal ores? (If you really want glass arrowheads, we
could probably make them directly from sand and clay.) Raise
livestock or go fishing? Hydro or steam? ...
I suspect that the first thing anybody does is look for dinner.
That necessity rules.
Long ago it took 50 families to produce enough surplus to support
51 people. By the Middle Ages that was down to 15 to 1 or so.
Today, with chemical fertilzers and mechanization, we have a
rato of about 1 to 10 or so.
In your scenario we go back to 50 to 1, which means that development
will be slow.
First of all, remember that the aliens left us a couple of years of
food in my scenario. But that aside, I think your numbers (or the
implications of them since they are made up) are not accurate. What we
call primitive people did not spend all their time just getting enough
food to survive, and the 1:10 or similar ratios for contemporary
farmers is specious since someone has to make the fertilizer and
tractors and the infrastructure to support them. Not to mention
fighting over the oil.
I'm no survivalist, but in a pristine world I'm pretty sure I could
feed a half dozen people with tools made of wood and bone, and
unformed rocks, particularly if there were someone better at
identifying plants than I am. The point of the exercise is that we
would make choices among already known technologies. I'm curious about
what we might choose *not* to develop.
But once again, we begin with what is in our heads, and that ain't
nothing.
Exactly.
In either case, my original comment still works. If we are clever
enough to keep the population at a reasonable level, we would pretty
quickly be back to a comfortable (and sustainable) lifestyle.
Eventually, yes. But why do you assume that we'd be any smarter
the second time around?
Well there's the rub eh. I like to think though that the combination
of abundant resources and historical knowledge would free us up to
make better decisions. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't think
there was a chance for the next few generations to do anything but
suffer.
-tg
--
--- Paul J. Gans