'2nd 'Evolution'

[Nithin]

Suppose a comet hit the earth and only a bunch of people survived, everything man-made was destroyed, how long would it take to
reach the same level of technology? It would be stone-age again but with our current intelligence.

Nithin.

 

[CTho9305]

I suppose that depends on how many books survive the destruction.

 

[uart]

You know the thing that's interesting to me about that question is the assumption of "our current intelligence". If the actual knowledge of all technology itself was lost but only our "evolutionarily inherited" intelligence remained then the question is quite interesting.

No one has ever had a 20,000 year old caveman on which to study (IO tests etc) so the truth is not know for certain, but most Anthropologists believe that biologically very little has actually changed in that time period.



Now if the question allows for the survival of some technology by the small pool of surviving humans then I think it would very much depend on which particular humans survived. For example I'm sure that our technological recovery would be much quicker if it were the folk frequenting this forum that survived as opposed to say a Jerry Springer Show audience.

 

[Turkish]

Originally posted by: Nithin
Suppose a comet hit the earth and only a bunch of people survived, everything man-made was destroyed, how long would it take to
reach the same level of technology? It would be stone-age again but with our current intelligence.

Nithin.

Will take long, because:

A huge dust cloud will be formed and that will prevent sun to reach earth crust for thousands of years, so the remaining humans will die as well. I don't know how long it will take for a biological evolution to form humans again

 

[Matthias99]

Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle did a very thorough treatment of this in "Lucifer's Hammer", although the destruction was less than total. I recommend giving it a read.

 

[Nithin]

Originally posted by: CTho9305
I suppose that depends on how many books survive the destruction.

Nothing man-made survived. All technical docs gone. Stone age again but with current intelligence.
Would we follow the same path of technological advancement as our ancestors did? Or would it be completely different?

 

[Nithin]

Originally posted by: Matthias99
Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle did a very thorough treatment of this in "Lucifer's Hammer", although the destruction was less than total. I recommend giving it a read.

Cool. My library has it. Will try and read it this weekend.

 

[sciencewhiz]

Originally posted by: Nithin
Suppose a comet hit the earth and only a bunch of people survived, everything man-made was destroyed, how long would it take to
reach the same level of technology? It would be stone-age again but with our current intelligence.

I was just thinking about the very same thing yesterday. I came to the conclusion that even if every single piece of our knowledge remained, it would still take a long time to get back to the same level technologically, just because of the massive numbers of people it takes to do anything big.

Even if I had all the knowledge in the world, I don't think I could build a Athlon 64 by myself before I died.

 

[Geniere]

It would be completely different. The survivors would know many things were possible. They would have knowledge of reading, writing, and ?rithmetic. They would likely form a social organization to enhance the survivability off all. They would likely record their knowledge or at least pass it on to the children. My guess is after only one or two generations, they would be at the eighteenth century level, and progress rapidly to say a 1920 level.

 

[RossGr]

Originally posted by: Geniere
It would be completely different. The survivors would know many things were possible. They would have knowledge of reading, writing, and ?rithmetic. They would likely form a social organization to enhance the survivability off all. They would likely record their knowledge or at least pass it on to the children. My guess is after only one or two generations, they would be at the eighteenth century level, and progress rapidly to say a 1920 level.

Your optimistic view of the human race is admirable, but is it realistic? My bet would be for the opposite. That in the 10 years after the disaster, the human race would degenerate to a brutal survival of the fittest battle for food and water. Books would be best used as fuel for fires, the few remaining scientist and highly educated survivors would not fare well in the savage culture that would evolve. Within a generation all stories of technology would be moving into the realm of myth. Within 3 generations the myth of the age of flight, instant communications could well result in some form of religion but any application of this rapidly disappearing technology would be rare.

Civilization would be lost as we know it. Humans may eventually get back to 17th or 18th century technology. There is a big fly in the ointment of recovering the lost technology. Much of the advancement of the Industrial Age depended upon easy access to coal and finally oil. Recall that the first oil wells in PA were essentially collecting SURFACE pools of oil, as this oil was consumed we had to begin drilling. The same with coal, initially it was just rock found laying around that burned. Now all of this easy access high density energy sources have been consumed. The generations attempting to recover our lost technology will not have easily acquired energy sources. This may make recovery even to 18th century levels difficult if not impossible.

 

[CTho9305]

Originally posted by: RossGr
There is a big fly in the ointment of recovering the lost technology. Much of the advancement of the Industrial Age depended upon easy access to coal and finally oil. Recall that the first oil wells in PA were essentially collecting SURFACE pools of oil, as this oil was consumed we had to begin drilling. The same with coal, initially it was just rock found laying around that burned. Now all of this easy access high density energy sources have been consumed. The generations attempting to recover our lost technology will not have easily acquired energy sources. This may make recovery even to 18th century levels difficult if not impossible.

Excellent point.

 

[ReiAyanami]

the matrix will take care of all our needs. just plug yourself in.

 

[zhena]

interesting idea?
but, i think that there are some points that are not being covered.
first of all, what does "the same level of technology??? mean? Is it a question of when? or if?

i.e. if at some point these new humans build an equivalent car in performance and features to some random honda civic, does that mean that when it comes to cars, the surviving generations are now back to the same level of technology as before?

also this question has to do with necessity being the mother of invention and the human quest for knowledge as it does with the human psyche??

for example what i mean is, a lot of things were invented because either they were necessary or because we wanted to see if we could do it. Now, if we know something can be done for sure, is it still interesting for us to do it?
take the atom bomb. if things started over again would we try to create the atom bomb again? or would we go strait to laser guided smart bombs. from scratch it would probably take the same amount of resources to create either one.

there would me millions of other things that i think wouldn't get created because we already know they can be, but are of no use to us.

On the other hand, on a global scale of things, the invention curve is pretty linear when it comes to what has to be created first in order to proceed with other inventions????
No atom bomb, means no atomic power stations??? etc??? so maybe it is a question of when.

 

[dnuggett]

We would go extinct if this happened. We would be so lost w/o any of our current technology and we lack the survival skills our ancestors had.

 

[RossGr]

Originally posted by: dnuggett
We would go extinct if this happened. We would be so lost w/o any of our current technology and we lack the survival skills our ancestors had.

There are some pockets of people who are not depentent on technology that would see little change. There are some in our culture who would be able to adatp. I agree that it would be the end of civilization as we know it. It is not clear that it would be the end of humans. Perhaps the begining of the end of our dominaition.

 

[VictorLazlo]

Lets say you are part of a small group of people in this situation. Just because you are a computer engineer, and you are aware of the design and manufacture of computer microchips, does this mean that you could build one from scratch in your lifetime, without any outside help, tools, etc? I doubt it. If it was me, I wouldn't even try. What is so great about the lifestyle we live today, that people would want to rush back to it as quickly as possible after a catastrophe?

 

[sao123]

Even under the worst circumstances, knowledge will only survive with people, paper, and rubble.

The amount of survivors and their geographic spread is the key.

Enough survivors and we could see a rebuilding of infastructure within 150 years, depending on the sate of reubble and the reusability of material.

A return to full mechanical industry within 50 years after infastructure.
Electrical and Digital Age may take an additional 100 years, depending on availablity of resources and knowledge succession.

Too few, and we may not even repopulate past 5 years, with sever winter and food shortages.

 

[MrDudeMan]

this is one of the most interesting threads ive read on AT...dont have much to contribute except everything i wanted to say has already been said and with better support...keep up the convo guys

 

[CQuinn]

A couple of quick thoughts:

Nothing man-made survived. All technical docs gone. Stone age again but with current intelligence.

Any catastophe powerful enough to wipe out all traces of man-made civilization would also
be powerful enough to wipe out all traces of man.

As uart pointed out, out "current intelligence" is more or less the same as it was for
people in the Stone Age. And in some cases they were smarter... becuase they had to
make do without computers to help them remember data and figure things out, without
phones or books to communicate ideas, and without sophisticated transportation to
help them get from point A to point B. They literally had to do things the hard way.

Putting a group of modern people in such a situation would hinder them for a while,
but they would cope, and once they started to cope, they would still have many advantages
that the stone age people lacked.

What is so great about the lifestyle we live today, that people would want to rush back to
it as quickly as possible after a catastrophe?

VictorLazlo,

THere is a TV series made a few years back that asked that very question. It was called
"Connections" (by James Burke) and dealt with a lot of the things we take for granted that
are benefits of modern society.

For instance, more than half the people posting to this thread would no be alive today
without the benefits that modern medicine has had on child mortality rates, prevention
as resistance to deadly diseases and injuries, improvement of general dietary and
hygiene habits, and benefits that overlap on other aspects of daily life.

THe computer engineer in your situation might not have access to a full chip fabrication
facility, but they would have an (at least basic) understanding of electricty, the
ability to read, write, and record their experiences, a knowledge of mathematics,
and understanding of history, the experience of what life was like before the disaster,
and (most importantly) training in logical thought, an understanding of the
scientific method, and the ability to communicate those ideas to others in a consistent
and repeatable fashion. That would put them light years ahead (especially since they
could understand what a light year is) of the Stone Age.

Even wihout the ability and complete knowledge to rebuild civilization overnight,
that person would have an amazing head start over people from distant periods of
history. Because it is easier to build something when you have a concept of what
it was made for and how it worked, than it is to make the discovery from nothing
at all.

 

[bwanaaa]

it would take much longer to get to where we are today than it did originally.


why? because of our feelings.

look at the geopolitical evolution of Europe-hundreds and even thousands of years of strife because one group thought it was better than another group. In the middle east they are still fighting over god knows what. in northern ireland they killed each other for centuries.

it took the united states 300 years to go from colonists in a hostile environment- (how many colonies plain and simply died off before jamestown?) to moon landing?

It was the optimism and belief in success that motivated the 'american dream'


who will care to work for a 'greater cause' in the post apocayptic era? hell, you cant find good help today, in the pre-apocalyptic era. One might thank providence for moore's law, because it is information technology that is improving our productivity by leveraging the increasing intelligence of the few over the increasing stupidity of the masses.

If we ever have the hubris to start again, anywhere, it would best be without the memory of the present or past.

 

[EmperorIQ]

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
the matrix will take care of all our needs. just plug yourself in.

I agree.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: bwanaaa
In the middle east they are still fighting over god knows what.

That "knows what" is a bit extraneous.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: CQuinn

THe computer engineer in your situation might not have access to a full chip fabrication
facility, but they would have [...] an understanding of the
scientific method [...]

Actually, engineers who really understand the scientific method are rare. IME, they simply believe that the world works the way their engineering rules of thumb tell them and anyone who even thinks there's something else to it should be scoffed at as an "academic". But yeah, there should be enough people with different skills that survive for us to get a running start.

 

[Alistar7]

The US government keeps and ongoing and updated collection of the whole knowledge of man on laser disc far enough underground to surivive the impact. Bear in mind this comet, meteor, etc would not just suddenly appear and strike us without warning. They would have time to assemble a large (500,000+) group of diverse and educated people to withstand the initial damage and the aftereffects of the "nuclear winter". They have locations built and ready for events just like this and nuclear war, biological disaster, etc.

The effect of a meteor the size of say, Texas, hitting the Earth would be catastrophic. First and foremost before it even impacts it would create a wall of fire over the area it passes over which would eventually spread over all land masses. Assuming it would hit water most likely, it would boil the oceans instantly, killing all sea life, also creating tsunamis that would wipe out all of the coastal populations, where a majority of the Earth's population is centered anyway. A land based impact would mean the entire surface of the Earth would be literally on fire within a 15 minute period, not exactly a pleasant though. The dust that resulted would in fact wipe out the light from the sun, although that could and would probably clear within a 5 year period. At that point the surface of the Earth would begin to heal itself and mankind could once again release it's plauge. Remember what was once thought to be fact is now known to not be, light is not necessary for life to form or evolve. They have found fissures in the Earth's core on the floor of the oceans where no light is present that are producing new organisms constantly, who knows where these will evolve to over time. It is assumed that of all life on Earth, 2/3 is BENEATH the surface of the planet.

Go back only 100 years before the industrial revolution and you will see that man had lived his life in much the same manner his grandparents, great grandparents, etc had before him. The normal day to day activities were very similar, obtaining the necessities of life almost on a daily basis. The past 100 years has seen a dramtatic change in this, the life we lead is vastly different than someone who grew up in 1850, whereas the life they led was not much different than someone from 1750, or even 1650. The change is a direct result of scientific advancements that have been made only very recently, especially considering we have been here for millions of years. We do not have to go forage for fresh food and water everyday, or farm or maintain livestock, a trip once a week to the local grocery store takes care of that for example. How much time do you spend everyday collecting food, water, cutting wood for heat, etc?

The question is how far and how fast could we recover assuming all the knowledge is at our disposal, I would have to think it would be extremely quick. You don't honestly think they dont also store computers among other vital and hard to reproduce technical items? Rebuilding factories capable of mass production would not be a major goal, there would be no need for mass quantities intially due the limited number of people and their centralized location. I honestly believe the next "generation" in this instance would be far superior to modern day man, because only the best and brightest from all fields would be saved to pass on their knowlegde. The one thing I would worry about would be enough genetic diversity, although with the advances in genetic bioengineering I think even that issue would be able to be resolved.

While I am on this little rant I feel obliged to include a few words about why it took so long for us to reach the level we are now. For centuries the Roman Catholic Church controlled almost all "scientific" fields with some rather strange guidelines. No experiments or advancements were pursued that did not abide by the Bible as it was interpreted at the time, and any that were found to not correlate were dismissed irregardless. The origin of life was not a question to be examined by their "scientists", that "fact" was already "known". Remember what happened to Galileo, while he was not the first to observe the fact that the Earth was not the center of the universe, he was labeled and tried as a heretic for his science due to the time he lived and the control the church had over science and society. Granted they did have to finally admit he was was in fact right and removed that label in a public apology, although that did not happen until the 1980s

. How much was lost when a new discovery was dismissed because it did not coincide with what the Bible claimed? How much FARTHER along would we be if that were not the case? Remember how far and how fast we have advanced in only 100 years, from horse and buggy and the pony express to moon landings and email......

 

[CTho9305]

Alistar7 - we didn't see the last 2 near misses until the object had already passed us (I think...)