Live data from Hacker News

Civilizational Collapse, Part 4

johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com

81–90 of 205 posts

Re: Civilizational Collapse, Part 4

#81
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vegetarian is lower cost and better for the environment. Protein per calorie doesn't seem comparable.

> Vegetarian is lower cost and better for the environment Depends on the biotope. In fertile European fields, less meat is much more efficient. In the arctic steppe or in the Sahel, animals are the more efficient way to extract calories from the land (though it doesn't scale to high population densities...)

> doesn't scale to high population densities

that's where we are right now so anything that doesn't scale is practically irrelevant

Re: Civilizational Collapse, Part 4

#82

When reading about what Physcon, I reminded me of an interview[0] I recently listened to with Drs. James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian. They bring up some of these very ideas and how they are encountering them today in our society: i.e. people who see science and reason as "master's tools" of "oppression". It seems that everything old is new again. [0]: https://youtu.be/YDFL3xwEEG8

There is a logic to that and the logic is partially found among Luddites and will continue to "annoy" us. In that technology in a hierarchical civilization like ours is highly dis-empowering and supports those at the top of the hierarchy.

Not to mention all the science which is bullshit and simply made as justification for funding. And the culture that goes with it which is often parodied on Reddit on /r/iamverysmart.

The Sociology of knowledge and science in our civilization leaves much to be desired in terms of distribution of power.

All the various -isms are each their own religion with their own power dynamics. Their truth is in many ways questionable and its a question as to whether its power structure is not mostly make belief propped up by power and money to further its own agenda.

Scientism, new atheism, whatever you want to call it is really a side show. James Lindsay, Dawkins, etc. don't have any real power. They are just a sideshow to the real power plays that go on in the background.

Re: Civilizational Collapse, Part 4

#83
post #30
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If our current civilization completely collapsed, I would think most of our technology would be gone forever. It is hard to imagine another civilization figuring out how to read a hard drive. A collapse is never binary (unless you are talking about planetary collapse where life does not recover at all anytime soon). It's actually very hard to even imagine circumstances where the whole body of knowledge we have woul…

A fictional universe of battletech illustrates that quite realistically. They have fusion reactors for every housewife, godlike metallurgy and rocket engines, but they can't make advanced computers no matter how hard they try after an interstellar nuclear civil war put an end to interstellar trade and, thus, complex economies and long supply chains. Such things require enormous societal organisations to work, and tha…

I think there's one key flaw in this, as well as it being fiction. There's a difference between being able to do something once or at very low volumes, and then doing it at scale for production.

So long as you understand the basic principles, you could make an integrated circuit using hand-drawn acetate or glass sheets and some really simple optics. Or ignore integrated circuits and make stuff from discrete components which you made yourself. You only need to care about making complex EUV scanners much, much later on.

In research labs around the world, we make stuff almost completely from scratch all the time. It's costly in terms of labour, and it's doing low volumes with lower tolerances. But it is making real, working stuff. In thousands of companies, research findings are developed into manufacturable products, with a lot of additional development work, optimising and refining.

We already know you can go from most concepts, to research, development and production. We've done it, and will continue to do it, in every field we can think of. I think to assert that we couldn't reinvent every one of the technologies humanity has discovered and developed fails to recognise just how resourceful and ingeneous we can be if we have the drive and opportunity. It might be that some technologies would be harder to reinvent, or would take longer to reinvent, but we're a capable lot and I'd bet we could get up to speed quite quickly given a few hints about what was possible. There are thousands of manufacturing techniques from the last century which we have lost the capability to use. Material quality changes, loss of knowledge and skills through retirement, fires, water damage etc. But we could regain each of them if the need was there. Look at FOGBANK for a recent example of a capability which was lost and regained. It takes time, money and resources, but it's possible.

The main thing we have in today's world which a collapse would eliminate is effectively limitless energy, and redeveloping that would be far harder than any individual technology. They would lack the more easily exploitable resources we already exhausted, and it would take time to overcome that hurdle through additional technological advances. But that is not a hard barrier. They would have to develop alternative sources and work out different strategies. This might delay things, but it wouldn't stop them entirely. We had sophisticated civilisation before the discovery of coal and oil, and electricity. Wind, water, solar and wood were widely used for mechanical and heating purposes long before electricity was discovered.

Re: Civilizational Collapse, Part 4

#84
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, animals can digest many forms of plant that are useless as human food such as plains grasses and tree leaves. Vegetarianism is elitist in that many people on earth cannot afford to foregoe any availible source of protein and food, there are starving people already and telling someone in Africa they shouldn't eat a chicken that forages near their house is pretty narrow minded. I tend to eat vegetarian on my own…

What does being vegetarian have to do with telling other people what they should or shouldn't eat?

I think the comment is built from the assumption that vegetarian push their ideas on others around them - like zealots

Re: Civilizational Collapse, Part 4

#85

On this topic - Oswald Spenglers observations on the topic of civilizational collapse are an interesting read. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Decline_of_the_West > Spengler's model of history postulates that any culture is a superorganism with a limited and predictable lifespan.

It is an interesting and inspiring read. However, it turned out to be completely wrong, like many (all?) predictive models of history.

Re: Civilizational Collapse, Part 4

#86
post #12

This feels reminiscent of the current issue of long-term data storage. Flash drives are volatile and can lose your data any minute. Solid State drives are slightly less volatile, and a hard disk has magnetic fields that will last decades, but nothing will keep our gigabytes of data alive and intact for future archaeologists. If the Library of Alexandria can burn, then so can any form of digital storage. On a side not…

>but nothing will keep our gigabytes of data alive and intact for future archaeologists Not so, it seems: https://www.archmission.org/5d-optical-memory

This sounds great. I’m wondering if this technology will ever be available for cunsumer use, similar to CDs or DVDs. The article didn’t mention current costs of this technology.

Re: Civilizational Collapse, Part 4

#87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vegetarian is lower cost and better for the environment. Protein per calorie doesn't seem comparable.

Protein per calorie is higher in e.g. spinach but 1000 calories of spinach is like 6 bags.

(or 1 tablespoon, once cooked) ;)

Re: Civilizational Collapse, Part 4

#88

If our current civilization completely collapsed, I would think most of our technology would be gone forever. It is hard to imagine another civilization figuring out how to read a hard drive.

Alternatively, assuming the current automation trend holds on, our technology may survive the collapse of humanity...

Re: Civilizational Collapse, Part 4

#89
post #81
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Vegetarian is lower cost and better for the environment Depends on the biotope. In fertile European fields, less meat is much more efficient. In the arctic steppe or in the Sahel, animals are the more efficient way to extract calories from the land (though it doesn't scale to high population densities...)

> doesn't scale to high population densities that's where we are right now so anything that doesn't scale is practically irrelevant

Given the climate of our world, we have a certain amount of arctic tundra etc. The best way to extract nourishment from that is foraging by e.g. reindeer. That holds irrespective of the population density.

Also, reindeer is one of the most ethical ways of modern husbandry. Animals live out in the wild, supported by humans e.g. adding feed when there is little to eat, protecting them from carnivores etc, and then they are slaughtered in a sustainable way after living close to how they do in their natural state.

Re: Civilizational Collapse, Part 4

#90
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vegetarian is lower cost and better for the environment. Protein per calorie doesn't seem comparable.

> Vegetarian is lower cost and better for the environment Depends on the biotope. In fertile European fields, less meat is much more efficient. In the arctic steppe or in the Sahel, animals are the more efficient way to extract calories from the land (though it doesn't scale to high population densities...)

In every conversation I've seen, this accurate fact has been the primary counterpoint to the idea that a plant-based diet is more sustainable, but what percent of the world population lives a nomadic lifestyle in the arctic steppes? I don't see even the most hardcore vegans running social media campaigns aimed at coverting remote nomadic cultures to vegetarianism. They tend to focus on middle class white people who have more options available to them. Also, reduced meat and fish consumption by rich people would leave more healthy ecosystems to sustain those who depend on them.
Post reply on HN