StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Wasn't really sure whether to post this here or in SLAM, but...

In the recent Nuclear War thread, people made mention several times that such a war would knock us back to either the 17th or 19th century, for various reasons (strong interdependence of nations, certain countries having a monopoly on the manufacture of certain pieces of technology vital to modern society etc). This got me wondering; what exactly would we need in order to build ourselves back up to where we are, as of the 21st century?

In Engines of Creation, it was mentioned that in order to get to where we have, we've been building successively more precise tools throughout history, which we use to build more precise tools... until we get to the stuff we have today, and beyond. Obviously, no-matter how smart you are, you can't go from scratch to nanomachines, you absolutely need the intermediary steps to get there. That said, having advanced knowledge and knowing where your end goal is, you should be able to get there much faster than you did the first time around.

Could, say, you get back up to the late 19th / early 20th century with the contents of a single book? Would you need something more akin to an encyclopedia set? What kind of recovery period are we looking at to go through the motions to recreate an industrialized society?

adam_grif wrote: Could, say, you get back up to the late 19th / early 20th century with the contents of a single book? Would you need something more akin to an encyclopedia set? What kind of recovery period are we looking at to go through the motions to recreate an industrialized society?

I think you would need at least a small library to back up the scientific and engineering knowledge of late 19th century. If we scale back to early 19th century a large encyclopedia set could be sufficient. I don't think even 17th century knowledge would fit in a single book, however.

The main problem for recreating industrial society in many places is that many of the resources that existed in the 19th century and early 20th century are gone. High quality anthracite coal is almost completely gone from Europe and North America, and although the remaining lower quality coals could still be utilized, they are more difficult to mine and have lower energy content. Land based oil sources are all nearly used up in the easily accessible areas of Europe and North America. The only ones remaining are in Siberia, Middle East and Africa and even many of those are already quite depleted and possibly not usable with pre-1950s technology. Although modern tech still extracts some oil from Texas for example, you would get nothing with 1930s let alone 19th century tech.

So my estimation is that it would take surprisingly long time to get back to even early 20th century level, since much of the knowledge from the first time around would not be applicable on the resource sector. Africa for example might actually have easier time, since many of the resources there are still in much earlier stage of utilization, although that is changing rapidly and 20 years from now the situation there will already be much worse as well, assuming no major wars that would slow down the process.

This is exactly why I'm concerned about technological civilization survivng the coming energy/resource and enviornmental catastrophes. If we lose what we currently have before either developing an independent self-sufficient space presence, or otherwise develop technologies that allow us to survive the next dark age intact, than as a species we may never again have anything more than a preindustrial society, that is if we survive at all.

Marcus Aurelius wrote: The main problem for recreating industrial society in many places is that many of the resources that existed in the 19th century and early 20th century are gone. High quality anthracite coal is almost completely gone from Europe and North America, and although the remaining lower quality coals could still be utilized, they are more difficult to mine and have lower energy content. Land based oil sources are all nearly used up in the easily accessible areas of Europe and North America. The only ones remaining are in Siberia, Middle East and Africa and even many of those are already quite depleted and possibly not usable with pre-1950s technology. Although modern tech still extracts some oil from Texas for example, you would get nothing with 1930s let alone 19th century tech.

That might be more of a limitation on an early Industrial civilization than on a civilization industrializing at all. They could burn wood, for example, although it's inferior to coal and oil in terms of energy. If they discover electricity and how to use it, then a number of alternative sources of power are available (particularly hydroelectric).

It's nowhere near as good as IRL nations had in terms of energy, but it is something.

So my estimation is that it would take surprisingly long time to get back to even early 20th century level, since much of the knowledge from the first time around would not be applicable on the resource sector. Africa for example might actually have easier time, since many of the resources there are still in much earlier stage of utilization, although that is changing rapidly and 20 years from now the situation there will already be much worse as well, assuming no major wars that would slow down the process.

That sounds like a recipe for large-scale trade, assuming they can get the shipping costs down considerably.

It should be possible with a single book to greatly expedite the re-advancement of society. It wouldn't be able to explicitly detail how everything has to be done, but it would riggerously set out scientific standards and methods of inquiry. General principles would be included. Things that it would be difficult, unethical or impossible to replicate for whatever reason would be included in full detail.

This discussion is reminding me of the "time traveler's essentials" T-shirt:

Temujin wrote:This is exactly why I'm concerned about technological civilization survivng the coming energy/resource and enviornmental catastrophes. If we lose what we currently have before either developing an independent self-sufficient space presence, or otherwise develop technologies that allow us to survive the next dark age intact, than as a species we may never again have anything more than a preindustrial society, that is if we survive at all.

This often scares the crap out of me as well in terms of the long-term viability of our species. Many people don't really think about the fact that we have used up an IMMENSE percent of the worlds energy already in terms of the easy to use stuff. Oil, Coal, Gas, we've burned up the entire high end easy to get stuff long ago.

If society and civilization was suddenly fucked, it might not matter if we retained large amounts of science and technology. Without a large power source to fuel new industry, machines, factories, we would never get back up and running as a modern civilization. What does it mater if we know how to make a silicon microchip, if we can't get a power station running with enough energy to produce the materials needed?

That's why we need to get serious about nuclear power, especially on the small scale like these designs:

Compact Reactor Technology Deemed Outstanding by Federal Laboratory Consortium

Hyperion Power Generation Sells First Transportable Nuclear Power Reactor

I'm not so sure if completely sealed reactors specifically designed to prevent reverse engineering of nuclear secrets are such a great solution if the goal is being able to rebuild from the ground up . Obviously, post apocalypse we can't exactly send them in to the manufacturer for refueling and maintenance.

Crossroads Inc. wrote:If society and civilization was suddenly fucked, it might not matter if we retained large amounts of science and technology. Without a large power source to fuel new industry, machines, factories, we would never get back up and running as a modern civilization. What does it mater if we know how to make a silicon microchip, if we can't get a power station running with enough energy to produce the materials needed?

An industrializing civilization would still have energy sources without fossil fuels, there's other things that can be burned to produce energy (wood and other plant material, for instance), the problem as I understand it is that if you're taking that energy from biomass energy for machines would be competing with energy for people (food), so it would be less profitable and harder to sustain.

I think it would probably help if memory of the past civilization was retained. People would remember the achievements of their ancestors and the luxury they enjoyed and have a powerful incentive to try to recapture it, and they'd have some idea of the things they'd have to do even if only sketchy. I imagine it'd be more of a problem with a civilization that didn't know what was possible, and wouldn't have any clear idea of a higher level of development to work toward.

adam_grif wrote:I'm not so sure if completely sealed reactors specifically designed to prevent reverse engineering of nuclear secrets are such a great solution if the goal is being able to rebuild from the ground up . Obviously, post apocalypse we can't exactly send them in to the manufacturer for refueling and maintenance.

The point of those isn't to be used for rebuilding technology, it's as a widespread replacement power source for a lot of what we currently have. We have to get off of fossile fuels for a variety of reasons, and renewables/alternate energies, while great for certain locations, have plenty of drawbacks and won't be able to provide enough energy to even come close to fully sustaining our modern high tech society. So the only alternative is nuclear.

Setting up large nuclear plants is expensive and time consuming, and a lot more ominous to the ecomentalists. Devices like these should make applying nuclear power on a widespead scale much easier. It also provides the opportunity to create smaller semi-self contained power grids, as oppossed to one large grid with one side of the country being dependent upon power plants and power lines in another.

Our modern society is too spread out and relient upon resources from other areas. We need to restructure things to minimize that, and create more self contained communites that provide their own power, food, etc.

adam_grif wrote:It should be possible with a single book to greatly expedite the re-advancement of society. It wouldn't be able to explicitly detail how everything has to be done, but it would riggerously set out scientific standards and methods of inquiry. General principles would be included. Things that it would be difficult, unethical or impossible to replicate for whatever reason would be included in full detail.

This is impossible. The amount of scientific and engineering knowledge needed to advance society even to mid 19th century standards cannot even be given a cursorial treatment in a single volume. If anything, a general outline of the scientific method and some basic physical theory would only slightly speed up application. It's not as if we invented aircraft simply by understanding Bernoulli's principle and Newton's 3rd law. It took detailed understanding to produce combustion engines which could supply the proper power/weight ratio to the Wright flyer, which themselves took detailed understanding of metallurgy, thermodynamics, and materials science.

In short, the reason we HAVE a seperate field called "engineering" is because it takes a LOT of work to go from science to application.

Topic moved as it has got nothing to do with history.

This may be stupid and I didn't read the nuclear war thread.

But I would imagine in a humanity nearly wiped out scenario, there would be plenty of people who still retained knowledge. Plus a in a nuclear war scenario I am pretty sure important minds would be stashed away, along with buried installations with vast computing power and independant power sources.

There isn't all that much which is 'vital' to modern society, food, housing, transport and order being the main ones, you don't need a mobile phone or a jet to have those.

The knowledge isn't the problem. The problem is that all the easily accessible resources, particularly in the form of energy are all mined and used up already. What's left is often of lower quality AND requires a lot more know how to find and access. The surface seams of anthracite and oil that just shoots up out of the ground when you stick a fence post in the ground, that's all long gone. Now it's deep sea drilling, mining crappier coal from deeper mines requiring fancy tech etc. etc. You can't build and fuel the deep see drilling ship unless you already have lots of metal and oil and whatnot that you can't get without the ship itself first. It's a chicken and egg thing.

Even if you have this knowledge in book form, you don't have the resources to apply it if you are starting over. It may very well be that no high tech society could be built from our bones once the current one crashes.

With a vastly depleted population why would you even need the current levels of power?

Lief wrote:With a vastly depleted population why would you even need the current levels of power?

You'd need the power eventually, plus you'd need the technical base to research and develop the next generation of power (fusion, better solar, etc) so you can survive. In order to get the power to start up the first positive energy output fusion reactor, you'd need a source of energy input. Hydroelectric dams might provide that, but have fun making those without large amounts of fossil fuels to power the vehicles (or electricity for battery-powered vehicles).

The only hope we might have today would be engineering some plant and/or fungus to live on landfills, waste areas, etc, and mine the minerals in them. So you plant a whole bunch of aluminum plants, wait a year for them to get established, another year for them to seek out the old cans, then all of the buds contain a small amount of pure aluminum in them. Wait a long time for the aluminum to be mined out of a landfill, then bring in the next set of plants.

Another option would be a massive kudzu style solar battery, where the plants grow out from a center 'node', which is an organic battery for the solar power the plants gather and conduct (need organic power cables). At night, the battery discharges slowly allowing the plants to keep on functioning, or is tapped for power by the nearby community.

Of course, for this you need a decent amount of gengineering knowledge, and the facilities to do so. AKA before the tech fall, you have to have developed your bootstrap.

yuckybear wrote: This is impossible. The amount of scientific and engineering knowledge needed to advance society even to mid 19th century standards cannot even be given a cursorial treatment in a single volume. If anything, a general outline of the scientific method and some basic physical theory would only slightly speed up application. It's not as if we invented aircraft simply by understanding Bernoulli's principle and Newton's 3rd law. It took detailed understanding to produce combustion engines which could supply the proper power/weight ratio to the Wright flyer, which themselves took detailed understanding of metallurgy, thermodynamics, and materials science.

In short, the reason we HAVE a seperate field called "engineering" is because it takes a LOT of work to go from science to application.

I didn't say it was possible to recreate the 19th century in a single book, I said it's possible to greatly enhance the speed at which we'll reach that level of technology by laying out a framework for it. Merely by knowing what IS possible, we have goals to work towards. Being able to include some manner of shortcuts to the goal is just icing on the cake.

Coalition wrote:The only hope we might have today would be engineering some plant and/or fungus to live on landfills, waste areas, etc, and mine the minerals in them. So you plant a whole bunch of aluminum plants, wait a year for them to get established, another year for them to seek out the old cans, then all of the buds contain a small amount of pure aluminum in them. Wait a long time for the aluminum to be mined out of a landfill, then bring in the next set of plants.

Of course, for this you need a decent amount of gengineering knowledge, and the facilities to do so. AKA before the tech fall, you have to have developed your bootstrap.

Yeah. Therein lies the problem.

Besides, it would probably be cheaper and easier to just force expendable population to mine the old landfills with picks and shovels. They can sort out all the usable bits of stuff by hand. They'd probably die pretty quickly, but then, they're expendable, slaves or prisoners or just excess kids.

What, you think people would play nice?

Junghalli wrote: An industrializing civilization would still have energy sources without fossil fuels, there's other things that can be burned to produce energy (wood and other plant material, for instance), the problem as I understand it is that if you're taking that energy from biomass energy for machines would be competing with energy for people (food), so it would be less profitable and harder to sustain.

I think it would probably help if memory of the past civilization was retained. People would remember the achievements of their ancestors and the luxury they enjoyed and have a powerful incentive to try to recapture it, and they'd have some idea of the things they'd have to do even if only sketchy. I imagine it'd be more of a problem with a civilization that didn't know what was possible, and wouldn't have any clear idea of a higher level of development to work toward.

Important point: If you get to the stage we are at now with fossil fuels, then have this war, you're not going to reach this level of civilisation again. Period. There is simply no physical way to extract the vastly harder to get and less energy dense sources, even relatively abundant coal, to enable society to rebuild. Once that fossil energy is gone, you have what is left of your installed technological power base and biomass. The latter will not produce an industrial society, and no industrial society with a dense energy source cannot achieve flight or break orbit. Sure, you could make up rocket fuel, for instance, if you know how, but we're talking about scale here, and the stuff that allowed us to have an industrial revolution is gone (to the pedants, this means the easy coal, oil and gas. If you think Britain would start the revolution with mountain top removal like WV has or deep sea oil several miles down like in the GOM, I laugh at you).

Our species has had a once in a planetary lifetime shot at vastly enlarging our available net energy (hence population explosion). Basic ecology dictates that when energy is scarce, so are your numbers. If nothing else, we'd at least not rebuild a society ready to eat this planet alive.

Coalition wrote:

Lief wrote:With a vastly depleted population why would you even need the current levels of power?

You'd need the power eventually, plus you'd need the technical base to research and develop the next generation of power (fusion, better solar, etc) so you can survive. In order to get the power to start up the first positive energy output fusion reactor, you'd need a source of energy input. Hydroelectric dams might provide that, but have fun making those without large amounts of fossil fuels to power the vehicles (or electricity for battery-powered vehicles).

The only hope we might have today would be engineering some plant and/or fungus to live on landfills, waste areas, etc, and mine the minerals in them. So you plant a whole bunch of aluminum plants, wait a year for them to get established, another year for them to seek out the old cans, then all of the buds contain a small amount of pure aluminum in them. Wait a long time for the aluminum to be mined out of a landfill, then bring in the next set of plants.

Another option would be a massive kudzu style solar battery, where the plants grow out from a center 'node', which is an organic battery for the solar power the plants gather and conduct (need organic power cables). At night, the battery discharges slowly allowing the plants to keep on functioning, or is tapped for power by the nearby community.

Of course, for this you need a decent amount of gengineering knowledge, and the facilities to do so. AKA before the tech fall, you have to have developed your bootstrap.

I remember hearing about using biotechnology, i.e., various engineered microorganisms, and feeding them certain materials to produce a kind of ethanol.

Temujin wrote: I remember hearing about using biotechnology, i.e., various engineered microorganisms, and feeding them certain materials to produce a kind of ethanol.

Is this what you're talking about?

And yeah, that'd be pretty sweet it if worked out, but "lets make more oil" probably won't fly with the eco friendly crowd

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Important point: If you get to the stage we are at now with fossil fuels, then have this war, you're not going to reach this level of civilisation again. Period. There is simply no physical way to extract the vastly harder to get and less energy dense sources, even relatively abundant coal, to enable society to rebuild. Once that fossil energy is gone, you have what is left of your installed technological power base and biomass. The latter will not produce an industrial society, and no industrial society with a dense energy source cannot achieve flight or break orbit. Sure, you could make up rocket fuel, for instance, if you know how, but we're talking about scale here, and the stuff that allowed us to have an industrial revolution is gone (to the pedants, this means the easy coal, oil and gas. If you think Britain would start the revolution with mountain top removal like WV has or deep sea oil several miles down like in the GOM, I laugh at you).

Our species has had a once in a planetary lifetime shot at vastly enlarging our available net energy (hence population explosion). Basic ecology dictates that when energy is scarce, so are your numbers. If nothing else, we'd at least not rebuild a society ready to eat this planet alive.

which means that we can't afford anymore an event that will eradicate our level of civilization. Unless we find another planet close enough that contains coal or maybe oil (back to the question : Was there life on Mars?) and a way to bring it back on Earth.

adam_grif wrote:

Temujin wrote: I remember hearing about using biotechnology, i.e., various engineered microorganisms, and feeding them certain materials to produce a kind of ethanol.

Is this what you're talking about?

And yeah, that'd be pretty sweet it if worked out, but "lets make more oil" probably won't fly with the eco friendly crowd

Yeah, that's basically along the lines I'm talking about. That idea goes back to at least he 1980s.

As for the ecomentalists, we will need an oil like substance for non-fuel purposes (like making plastics and such), and that was the original idea. Oil for fuel purposes would be replaced by one or more of the potential alternatives. While their hearts are in the right place, like with nuclear power, a lot of the ecomentalists are just too out of touch with reality in terms of just what it takes to keep our modern society going.

sirocco wrote:Unless we find another planet close enough that contains coal or maybe oil (back to the question : Was there life on Mars?) and a way to bring it back on Earth.

IIRC the closest possible hydrocarbons are believed to be on Titan, but that won't do us any good now, or if we're stuck in a pre-industrial society.

If we get knocked back to a pre-industrial society, we're probably going to die. Last I checked, few people possess the skills that we would need to begin rebuilding following a nuclear war, without resorting to computers. Also, many of the nescessary people will be in cities, which naturally will be targetted for nuclear death, so they won;t be around to give advice.

On a side note, is this theoretical nuclear conflict going to level all the cities but leave many of the towns relatively intact, or will there just be a few surviving small towns?