4 ms·
Not really a great measure. If you remove the artificial from the world entirely, most people would be dead inside of a month.
by jtriangle 3y ago
Not really a great measure. If you remove the artificial from the world entirely, most people would be dead inside of a month.
- falcolas 3y agoIf it's hot and humid (a wet-bulb temperature above body temperature) and you lose power, you're dead within hours, not months. You can't hydrate or shade to cool yourself sufficiently in those conditions.
- jtriangle 3y agoSure, there are places that would kill people quicker than others, but that's not what we're talking about here, we're talking about the benchmark of survivability without artificial means. Truthfully, as a species, most of us require artificial augmentation in order to survive, which makes that artificial augmentation a poor benchmark for survivability.
- falcolas 3y agoOur ancestors' survival in Africa, Siberia, and pretty much every place in between gives lie to the notion that "most of us require artificial augmentation in order to survive". And to be clear, no, I do not consider the use of fire, animal skins, etc. to be artificial augmentation. I do consider electricity and inter-continental supply lines to be artificial augmentation.
- jtriangle 3y agoRight, so, do you know how to hunt? Can you start a fire without matches? Ever skin an animal? I can do 1/3 there, only because of years in boyscouts, and there's no way in hell I'd survive without artificial augmentation, regardless of where you put me, I'm simply not prepared for it, same as almost everyone else. If you're not basically the primative technology guy from youtube, very slim odds you'd figure it out quickly enough.
- kaba0 3y agoI don’t know, sure plenty would die, but I’m hell of a lot more likely to re-discover how to hunt and cook it on fire vs building a goddamn air-conditioner, and the two is not even comparable.