6 ms·

Rebooting with the current knowledge base, possibly. Booting from scratch with no fossil fuels, doubtful. I have long suspected that one of the Great Filters is

Rebooting with the current knowledge base, possibly. Booting from scratch with no fossil fuels, doubtful. I have long suspected that one of the Great Filters is the propensity of a planet to generate fossil energy. You will really only find large quantities of oil in a narrow range of circumstances, depending on specific levels of tectonic activity, duration and abundance of life, sedimentation patterns due to rainfall and ocean distributions, and low to moderate levels of atmospheric oxidizer.

Aperocky 6y ago
Imagine if Earth is entirely water. The poor fish can develop mega brains but they would still be more or less stuck under water with no real viable technologies.
- romanovcode 6y ago
  I mean, aren't dolphins, whales and orcas already have pretty much close to human-level intelligence?
  - ars 6y ago
    No? They are very smart, but human level? Not even close. They are similar to apes in intelligence perhaps. That's not human level.
    - romanovcode 6y ago
      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 :)
      - ars 6y ago
        People who can't read or write aren't less smart than other humans. No, there are no animals at all, anywhere even close to the smartness of humans. It's not a small difference, it's a HUGE gap. When we talk about how smart apes, or dolphins are, we are talking relative to other animals. Relative to humans, it's almost nothing.
- canniballectern 6y ago
  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.
  - KineticLensman 6y ago
    But not fire, probably, which is a key to many tech trees (e.g. smelting, cooking).
    - jbay808 6y ago
      Many of those processes can actually be done biologically by enzymes, without needing high temperatures.
  - Aperocky 6y ago
    like fire, metallurgy? They are stuck behind bronze age. I just don't see any technology without having these things as prerequisites. Even electricity is generally impossible when you live in a big conductor.
  - godelski 6y ago
    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 their airlocks would be like. Or clean rooms! Hell, anything optical or electronic you're going to have a much harder time with.
    - TeMPOraL 6y ago
      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...)
godelski 6y ago
I think even with our current knowledge no. We still haven't even really figured out how to do the energy sector without fossil fuels (we're pretty darn close though). But outside of that we have a lot of problems. One of the biggest challenges in climate is that the population has been so hyper focused with energy and transportation (because they are the primary drivers, but only 60% of emissions). Modern society needs steel, concrete, plastics, medicines, cooling systems, food, etc. We have major challenges in making many of those things green.
- cogman10 6y ago
  I think we actually could do it today. The major issue is we couldn't do it without some major costs (It wouldn't be cheap or free). What we'd have to change is the way society consumes energy. Right now, we operate under the paradigm of "I request energy, the grid ramps up and down to fill demand". Instead, we could to switch over to "I ask the grid if capacity is available and use energy when it is". That would require the ability for the grid to say "no" and for industries to respond to "nos". Nothing terribly hard about that with current data connections. Easiest way to set that up is with energy bidding. When production is high and demand is low, price goes down. When production is low and demand is high, price goes up. Some applications could even chose to just ignore it and always take (However, everyone could not do that). What would be the consequence of such a system? That'd mean things like manufacturing would have to have some ramping capabilities. Homes might have to tolerate temps shifting higher or lower than is comfortable. Goods might need to be transported at a much slower pace (Trans oceanic shipping, in particular, would need to be completely changed). And some industries would probably die all together with current tech (such as the airline and cruise industry). The next question is what do we consider as using fossil fuels? For example, I wouldn't call burning wood a fossil fuel (even though it releases CO2 into the atmosphere) nor would I consider turning vegetable oil into plastic as using a fossil fuel. Both could be done today to keep the same amount of products, but would significantly change the cost characteristics of such things. Plastics would suddenly become a lot more expensive, for example. Steel production might go down, but would not be eliminated. Concrete would be one that you'd have to define what you mean by "fossil fuel" as it would release CO2 but isn't technically a fossil fuel. The process of making concrete can be done without burning oil.
suifbwish 6y ago
I suspect that quantum physics may eventually yield some very unexpected power source possibilities

Aperocky 6y ago

Imagine if Earth is entirely water. The poor fish can develop mega brains but they would still be more or less stuck under water with no real viable technologies.

romanovcode 6y ago
I mean, aren't dolphins, whales and orcas already have pretty much close to human-level intelligence?
- ars 6y ago
  No? They are very smart, but human level? Not even close. They are similar to apes in intelligence perhaps. That's not human level.
  - romanovcode 6y ago
    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 :)
    - ars 6y ago
      People who can't read or write aren't less smart than other humans. No, there are no animals at all, anywhere even close to the smartness of humans. It's not a small difference, it's a HUGE gap. When we talk about how smart apes, or dolphins are, we are talking relative to other animals. Relative to humans, it's almost nothing.
canniballectern 6y ago
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.
- KineticLensman 6y ago
  But not fire, probably, which is a key to many tech trees (e.g. smelting, cooking).
  - jbay808 6y ago
    Many of those processes can actually be done biologically by enzymes, without needing high temperatures.
- Aperocky 6y ago
  like fire, metallurgy? They are stuck behind bronze age. I just don't see any technology without having these things as prerequisites. Even electricity is generally impossible when you live in a big conductor.
- godelski 6y ago
  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 their airlocks would be like. Or clean rooms! Hell, anything optical or electronic you're going to have a much harder time with.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    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...)

godelski 6y ago

I think even with our current knowledge no. We still haven't even really figured out how to do the energy sector without fossil fuels (we're pretty darn close though). But outside of that we have a lot of problems. One of the biggest challenges in climate is that the population has been so hyper focused with energy and transportation (because they are the primary drivers, but only 60% of emissions). Modern society needs steel, concrete, plastics, medicines, cooling systems, food, etc. We have major challenges in making many of those things green.

cogman10 6y ago
I think we actually could do it today. The major issue is we couldn't do it without some major costs (It wouldn't be cheap or free). What we'd have to change is the way society consumes energy. Right now, we operate under the paradigm of "I request energy, the grid ramps up and down to fill demand". Instead, we could to switch over to "I ask the grid if capacity is available and use energy when it is". That would require the ability for the grid to say "no" and for industries to respond to "nos". Nothing terribly hard about that with current data connections. Easiest way to set that up is with energy bidding. When production is high and demand is low, price goes down. When production is low and demand is high, price goes up. Some applications could even chose to just ignore it and always take (However, everyone could not do that). What would be the consequence of such a system? That'd mean things like manufacturing would have to have some ramping capabilities. Homes might have to tolerate temps shifting higher or lower than is comfortable. Goods might need to be transported at a much slower pace (Trans oceanic shipping, in particular, would need to be completely changed). And some industries would probably die all together with current tech (such as the airline and cruise industry). The next question is what do we consider as using fossil fuels? For example, I wouldn't call burning wood a fossil fuel (even though it releases CO2 into the atmosphere) nor would I consider turning vegetable oil into plastic as using a fossil fuel. Both could be done today to keep the same amount of products, but would significantly change the cost characteristics of such things. Plastics would suddenly become a lot more expensive, for example. Steel production might go down, but would not be eliminated. Concrete would be one that you'd have to define what you mean by "fossil fuel" as it would release CO2 but isn't technically a fossil fuel. The process of making concrete can be done without burning oil.

suifbwish 6y ago

I suspect that quantum physics may eventually yield some very unexpected power source possibilities