Globular Empires.

[Green Baron]

7 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

FWIW, there is not a lot of evidence people ever "lived in caves".

That is absolutely true. Abri (overhanging cliffs) or rock shelter is the right word, the "termius technicus" or technical term.

Though mostly kept secret among archaeologists in order not to take the chance to work as a consultant for Disney and the likes. The poor guys always need money :-)

Seriously, ritual places could be added as an explanation, deducing from paintings and from parallels to shamanism the walls of caves might have had a meaning for the late ice age people. I am sure there is info about it to be found.

But i don't want to disrupt the colourful depiction of our future with boring narrations from the past

Edited November 13, 2017 by Green Baron

[NSEP]

On 12/11/2017 at 9:13 AM, Nibb31 said:

I stopped here.

Do you have any idea of how long 40000 years is ? We were still living in caves 20000 years ago. Look at how humanity has changed in just the last 1000 years. Look at how close we have come to extinction in the last 100 years. Do you really think that Homo Sapiens will still be around as a species in 40000 years ?

You are going to have a hard time killing all cockro...*cough* i meant humans. Im sure at least a billion people will survive the nuclear war itself, and don't you think at least a few of them has a master plan to survive a nuclear winter?

Edited November 13, 2017 by NSEP

[kerbiloid]

3 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

our civilization is built on the abundant availability of cheap energy.   Biofuels are a complete non starter,

Our civilization has been started on the most bioest between biofuels: dry wood, dry manure and animal fat.

Biofuels were the only starters at all. Charcoal was just a fancy hype product, made of (ta-dam!) burnt biofuel - the wood.
While mineral coal and oil had been really added when our civilization began suffering from a lack of biofuel.

P.S. Not a green fan.
P.P.S. And not a rapeseed RP-1 fan, too.

P.P.P.S.
https://www.google.ru/search?q=carmel+cave&newwindow=1&dcr=0&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj647bXnLvXAhVjYZoKHTnoB8MQsAQIPQ&biw=1920&bih=977

https://www.google.ru/search?q=altamira+cave&newwindow=1&dcr=0&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjng6yBnbvXAhWFCJoKHXSKCsYQ_AUICigB&biw=1920&bih=977

Edited November 13, 2017 by kerbiloid

[YNM]

11 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Our civilization has been started on the most bioest between biofuels: dry wood, dry manure and animal fat.

Biofuels were the only starters at all. Charcoal was just a fancy hype product, made of (ta-dam!) burnt biofuel - the wood.
While mineral coal and oil had been really added when our civilization began suffering from a lack of biofuel.

That still possibly means going back to copper and bronze rather than iron and steel. I presume they generate lower temperatures.

 

EDIT : I'm solidly wrong on this one...

Edited November 13, 2017 by YNM

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, YNM said:

That still possibly means going back to copper and bronze rather than iron and steel. I presume they generate lower temperatures.

No, charcoal was used for making iron all the way opp to year 1600 or something. We switched to coal mostly because we started to run out of trees. 
And it would be an bit redundant with all the high quality steel around. 

The main benefit some who rebuild civilization from scratch would have would be all the knowledge. The main problem would be that lots of the modern as in last 50 years items require very long supply chains and large production to be practical. 

[PakledHostage]

1 hour ago, YNM said:

That still possibly means going back to copper and bronze rather than iron and steel. I presume they generate lower temperatures.

Since we're solidly off topic anyway, I'll add this: I was up in L'Anse Aux Meadows (a UNESCO world heritage site) this past summer and the Parks Canada interpreters explained how the Norse settlers there were able to produce iron a thousand years ago using only locally sourced materials. Parks staff even built a furnace a couple of years ago to duplicate the task using only middle ages technology to prove that it was possible.

But the point remains: If we wipe ourselves out for some reason, any civilization that arises after us will have a harder time getting going than we did because the easy to get at resources have been used up. That seems self evident to me. Why are we even debating it? Whether that is coal, oil or ore, the easy to get at stuff is gone. Future civilizations would inevitably mine our garbage dumps for metals, but they wouldn't have the abundant cheap energy that we are fortunate to have.

[Green Baron]

Everything our findings tell us speak against the notion of "galactic empires". It is nice movie stuff but not more.

We can't survive in space, the stars don't have the necessary materials, we can't afford the energies necessary, we can't achieve the speeds. Even comparisons with the past tell us that such a thing as a uniform spreading of culture over the earth or even a continent where there is everything to make a living does not exist.

There is not a single scientific hint that any one of the assumptions in the OP has a root in reality. No signs of "advanced societies", no uniform growth, few comparable species' lifetimes, only nice pictures.

I had to say that :-)

 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Green Baron said:

We can't survive in space, the stars don't have the necessary materials, we can't afford the energies necessary, we can't achieve the speeds. Even comparisons with the past tell us that such a thing as a uniform spreading of culture over the earth or even a continent where there is everything to make a living does not exist.

This.

Humanity Terran life may eventually spread to the stars (and I personally believe we it will) but we will probably do so without FTL drives. Without FTL drives you can disabuse yourself of any idea of an empire larger than a solar system, and even then holding on to the outskirts is going to take too much energy to bother.

FTL is the key to "empire". Without it interstellar society is mainly just a question how you talk, if at all, since projecting force is a monumental, if not impossible, undertaking.

[DAL59]

5 hours ago, Green Baron said:

we can't afford the energies necessary, we can't achieve the speeds.

http://www.lunarsail.com/LightSail/rit-1.pdf

[Green Baron]

 

1 hour ago, DAL59 said:

http://www.lunarsail.com/LightSail/rit-1.pdf

This is so cool, i try to say "but look at reality" and get a fantasy concept back. But since you didn't comment i just assume you agree with me that we can't afford the energies nor the speeds.

[DAL59]

What exactly is wrong with Dr. Forward's proposal? 

[YNM]

12 hours ago, magnemoe said:

No, charcoal was used for making iron all the way opp to year 1600 or something. We switched to coal mostly because we started to run out of trees.

 

12 hours ago, PakledHostage said:

Since we're solidly off topic anyway, I'll add this: I was up in L'Anse Aux Meadows (a UNESCO world heritage site) this past summer and the Parks Canada interpreters explained how the Norse settlers there were able to produce iron a thousand years ago using only locally sourced materials. Parks staff even built a furnace a couple of years ago to duplicate the task using only middle ages technology to prove that it was possible.

Ah... yeah, I'm solidly wrong on that end. All you need to do is being very good at it.

 

12 hours ago, magnemoe said:

And it would be an bit redundant with all the high quality steel around.

High-quality steel is worse to "mine" from than iron ore. Trust me.

 

5 hours ago, DAL59 said:

http://www.lunarsail.com/LightSail/rit-1.pdf

1000 km lightsail and lens ? 4 ly distance (so latency of 4 years) ? 1000 kg probe (not even larger than most comm sats) ?

[mikegarrison]

On 11/13/2017 at 6:17 PM, DAL59 said:

What exactly is wrong with Dr. Forward's proposal? 

In his own novel he highlights one problem -- people back home get tired of paying for it so they don't bother to turn on the lasers.