4 ms·
Ultimately, and what the OP ignores, is rebuilding society [and resource exploitation to do so in general] like can be done with the rubble of the existing civi
by fweespeech 11y ago
Ultimately, and what the OP ignores, is rebuilding society [and resource exploitation to do so in general] like can be done with the rubble of the existing civilization.
It will be a long, slow road to recovery but all you really need to be able to do is setup one hydroelectric dam and you have enough energy to rebuild civilization.
We could build those with 1800s technology and, frankly, many of the innovations of the 1800s today are possible by just recycling the bones of a large city.
So I don't think this doomsday scenario will be as bad as the OP fears. We just may get booted down to the 1700-1800s and take 300 years rebuilding.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- irremediable 11y agoYeah... I'm more inclined towards your view. It's hard to know for certain, but I think people would redevelop things -- after all, they already developed them once, from a significantly weaker position. There's the possibility that I'm succumbing to the anthropic principle (if people hadn't developed these things, I wouldn't be here to remark they had), but IMO that's offset by independent reinventions of several basic technologies by civilisations starting from much less than our "post-apocalypse" civilisation would have.
- Casseres 11y agoThe problem is, with just one hydroelectric dam, others will want it. Thus others will fight you for it, and in the process, it will be destroyed or the people that know how to maintain it will be killed.
- fweespeech 11y ago1800s-era Hydroelectric Dams are buildable with basically nothing but very basic technology and alot of manpower. No one would kill for them in the general case simply because other people could build it. This isn't some SUPERMODERNTECH but a very basic one we've been exploiting for thousands of years, just the ability to convert it to electricity wasn't really possible until the 1800s.