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

111–120 of 205 posts

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

#111

Post by TeMPOraL »

jobigoud wrote: post #57
wcarss wrote: post #29

Ringworld goes into this topic quite a bit, so it was interesting to me to see that the author is an astrobiologist who wrote "The Knowledge", about restarting civilization from scratch. Niven (who wrote Ringworld) also co-wrote "Lucifer's Hammer" with Jerry Pournelle, which was like a fun book version of a big-cast disaster movie, about a comet colliding with the earth in the mid-1970s. Lucifer's Hammer had some fai…

Another "if" I'm often wondering is about the size of the Earth. Had we shown up on something the size of the Moon or Ganymede, the amount of resources we would have had at our disposal would have been a lot smaller. We would probably have figured that we weren't the center of the Solar system much sooner though. On the other hand if an intelligent species spawns on a much larger planet they can progress much longer…

Conversely, were we born on a world a bit larger than Earth, we wouldn't be able to reach orbit the way we did, due to limits of chemical rocket propulsion.

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

#112

Post by walleeee »

wcarss wrote: post #29

Ringworld goes into this topic quite a bit, so it was interesting to me to see that the author is an astrobiologist who wrote "The Knowledge", about restarting civilization from scratch. Niven (who wrote Ringworld) also co-wrote "Lucifer's Hammer" with Jerry Pournelle, which was like a fun book version of a big-cast disaster movie, about a comet colliding with the earth in the mid-1970s. Lucifer's Hammer had some fai…

> Imagine if human-like life had evolved a billion years ago, when the reservoirs of petrochemicals were a billion years less developed?

Perhaps then we (they?) would have had time to contemplate the consequences of burning through that massive biochemical battery with wild abandon!

> The great filter could work the other way -- we could be the rare success merely by dint of having shown up 'late'.

Personally I like the idea of a middle ground between this and the more common inversion: that there's an optimal planetary resource balance wherein a species can develop enough technology to keep the wick from burning out, but energy densities are not sufficient to ignite the same kind of powder keg we have.

Filter-traversing civilizations would be even rarer, then.

But yeah, super fun to think about.

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

#113

Post by vcxy »

OJFord wrote: post #48
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.

Lose generally (RP, and I think 'most' dialects) does not rhyme with news. 'Lose' rhymes with 'two's [complement]'; 'news' rhymes with 'pews'. (The latter pair has a /j/ or 'yuh sound' before the vowel.) (Heh, really is a can of worms isn't it: 'choose' rhymes with 'lose'; not with 'loose'. Poor ESL learners, no envy from me! Hindi/devanagari, which I'm learning as a second language, is so easy by comparison.)

Huh, I didn't realize it was pronounced that way outside of the US. Definitely a blind spot for me.

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

#114

Post by romanovcode »

ars wrote: post #92
romanovcode wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, aren't dolphins, whales and orcas already have pretty much close to human-level intelligence?

No? They are very smart, but human level? Not even close. They are similar to apes in intelligence perhaps. That's not human level.

I mean, I think that one of the reasons humans are smart is just because of writing so that the knowledge gets passed down with much more ease.

I think if these animals could write and read somehow they would be just as smart (if not smarter) than some humans :)

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

#115

Post by vcxy »

buckminster wrote: post #40
MauranKilom wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Definitely different to my American ear as well.

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

#116

Post by tastyfreeze »

decafninja wrote: post #26
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…

Reminds me of The Expanse. Or countless other science fiction stories involving Earth vs. the colonies (whether they be on Mars, the Moon, or orbitals). Not sure if it's a coincidence that such stories often involve Earth and her colonies ending up in war.

That is an easy trope that follows history. For example, England is responsible for 63 national independence days.

Colonies need support initially. But, once they get established and self sustaining it seems to be the natural progression to wonder why they still are subjects of a far away, likely exploitive, ruler.

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

#117

Post by TeMPOraL »

godelski wrote: post #104
canniballectern wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As land creatures, we haven't explored the underwater tech tree in much detail. If there are fishpeople with mega brains out there somewhere, they might have figured out some stuff that we haven't.

There are certain limitations we know about though. Like that making a spaceship would be more difficult. Not only getting out of the water and then into space, but just that you have to have your capsule at a higher pressure. Though landing might be a bit easier because you don't have to use boats to get people out. But then landing and exploring another planet will be much harder, and don't get me started on what t…

On the other hand, biological systems tend to use copious amounts of water to facilitate not just chemical reaction, but also keeping things moving (at molecular scale) or suspended and protected from shocks (at macroscale). It's easier to float things in water than in the air. The water-people could thus have certain advantages in their technological process.

(On the other other hand, salt water is metal killer...)

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

#119

Post by jbay808 »

KineticLensman wrote: post #100
canniballectern wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As land creatures, we haven't explored the underwater tech tree in much detail. If there are fishpeople with mega brains out there somewhere, they might have figured out some stuff that we haven't.

But not fire, probably, which is a key to many tech trees (e.g. smelting, cooking).

Many of those processes can actually be done biologically by enzymes, without needing high temperatures.

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

#120

Post by irrational »

OJFord wrote: post #48
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.

Lose generally (RP, and I think 'most' dialects) does not rhyme with news. 'Lose' rhymes with 'two's [complement]'; 'news' rhymes with 'pews'. (The latter pair has a /j/ or 'yuh sound' before the vowel.) (Heh, really is a can of worms isn't it: 'choose' rhymes with 'lose'; not with 'loose'. Poor ESL learners, no envy from me! Hindi/devanagari, which I'm learning as a second language, is so easy by comparison.)

News and Lose rhyme for me. Must be a dialect thing. I was raised in Texas, California, Florida, and Indiana - so I'm not sure what dialect I speak.
Post reply on HN