Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Could we reboot a modern civilization without fossil fuels? (2016)

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 205 posts

Re: Could we reboot a modern civilization without fossil fuels? (2016)

#31

Post by fredophile »

My impression is that the big road block to unlocking something like the industrial revolution is the precision of your tools. During the industrial revolution there were big advances in metal tools. Maudslay's development of a metal lathe that could be used to make metal tools was a huge step forward. I think if you can reach this point of development you should be able to make continued progress using non-fossil fuel power sources.

Are there other natural materials that could be used instead of metal to achieve this level of precision? I'm pretty skeptical on this.

Are there energy sources, other than coal, that could be used to develop early metallurgy to the point where someone could re-invent Maudslay's lathe? I suspect that there are and given enough time someone would find one. It might take longer to reach this point but I believe we could get there.

Re: Could we reboot a modern civilization without fossil fuels? (2016)

#33

Post by lawrenceyan »

fredophile wrote: post #31

My impression is that the big road block to unlocking something like the industrial revolution is the precision of your tools. During the industrial revolution there were big advances in metal tools. Maudslay's development of a metal lathe that could be used to make metal tools was a huge step forward. I think if you can reach this point of development you should be able to make continued progress using non-fossil fu…

Charcoal is technically an unlimited renewable resource.

Re: Could we reboot a modern civilization without fossil fuels? (2016)

#34

Post by jeffreyrogers »

fractal618 wrote: post #11

The article says an industrial revolution would be difficult at best. Industrial Revolution would be relative to the unique scenario. People will always innovate

The industrial revolution happened in one tiny part of the world with a variety of unique features. Seems likely that it could've been missed entirely had England's history been slightly different. E.g. part of why the industrial revolution was possible was because an argricultural revolution preceeded it. So there was a temporary increase in capital accumulation (since agriculture was more productive) followed by a rise in population (families could be larger), so this capital could be deployed in new industries using the cheap labor that had recently been born and wasn't needed to produce food.

Had the industrial revolution not followed this agricultural revolution it seems possible that society would've been stuck in another Malthusian trap and there would not be enough surplus for the industrial revolution to get started.

Re: Could we reboot a modern civilization without fossil fuels? (2016)

#35

Post by [deleted] »

fredophile wrote: post #31

My impression is that the big road block to unlocking something like the industrial revolution is the precision of your tools. During the industrial revolution there were big advances in metal tools. Maudslay's development of a metal lathe that could be used to make metal tools was a huge step forward. I think if you can reach this point of development you should be able to make continued progress using non-fossil fu…

[deleted]

Re: Could we reboot a modern civilization without fossil fuels? (2016)

#36

Post by jeffreyrogers »

zalkota wrote: post #2

No, how the hell do we create steel without coal.

Not sure why your comment was dead since it's a good question. The answer is with charcoal, which is how it used to be done. It's less efficient (charcoal isn't as strong as coal so the furnaces have to be smaller) but it worked fine in the past. You obviously couldn't have the same steel output using charcoal. In the past places started running out of trees to turn into charcoal which is why they switched to coal in the first place.

Re: Could we reboot a modern civilization without fossil fuels? (2016)

#37

Post by pretendscholar »

hesdeadjim wrote: post #22

It's easy for me to end up existentially depressed if I go too far down this line of thinking. But, frankly, we are fucked here on Earth. We're consuming resources at an exponential rate with a population way, way outside what the planet can support sustainably. And we won't fix it before it's too late, because our base human nature wants more, bigger, better at the expense of all else. I'm with Musk on this, the onl…

If lack of resources would inevitably make a greater culture why not just wait until we run low on resources here on earth? Kind of sounds like a self solving problem. But if material success degenerates culture like you say then wouldn't the success of the space colony create its own future greedy culture? Hard Times --> Strong People --> Good Times --> Weak People --> Hard Times

Re: Could we reboot a modern civilization without fossil fuels? (2016)

#38

Post by fallingfrog »

One might argue that the boon of fossil fuels was actually the cause of a lot of chaos and war since the technological change it enabled was so rapid and norms around war took a long time to catch up. Millions of young people from all over Europe went into the First World War with their heads full of ideas about bravery and daring and adventure only to get thrown into a vast industrial meat grinder. The Second World War was mostly caused by the aftershocks of the first. Maybe if things had progressed more slowly, we could have avoided the upheaval.

Re: Could we reboot a modern civilization without fossil fuels? (2016)

#39

Post by mariusor »

hesdeadjim wrote: post #22

It's easy for me to end up existentially depressed if I go too far down this line of thinking. But, frankly, we are fucked here on Earth. We're consuming resources at an exponential rate with a population way, way outside what the planet can support sustainably. And we won't fix it before it's too late, because our base human nature wants more, bigger, better at the expense of all else. I'm with Musk on this, the onl…

> I'm with Musk on this, the only way we survive is to get the hell off Earth.

The problem with this line of thinking is is that when people say "we" they don't really mean it in "the human kind" sense. Because that's either logistically impossible, or if it's not, you get to leave with the same people that want "bigger, better" and they'll ruin it for everyone else.

So educating these people should come first no matter which scenario humanity pursues.

Re: Could we reboot a modern civilization without fossil fuels? (2016)

#40

Post by buckminster »

MauranKilom wrote: post #24
vcxy wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact they are not pronounced the same. English is weird, sure, but I think if you have that kind of misconception then it's going to seem far stranger. "Loose" rhymes with "juice", "lose" rhymes with "news", if that helps.

To add to this (because the difference was really not clear to me from your suggested rhymes): The difference is in the sound of the final s. "loose" ends with "s" from "set", whereas "lose" ends with the z from "zoo". And while the vocal sound is the same according to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lose and https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/loose , I feel that there is (or can be) some difference there. Just like in "j…

They are shown with different pronunciations. Do you mean the recordings? They sound different to my British ear.
Post reply on HN