How would it look like if humans separately developed modernity on another planet?

[szputnyik]

The sci-fi series Stargate SG-1 and its spinoffs mainly deal with Earth-like planets on which humans live, who were kidnapped from Earth in the Ancient and Middle Ages. While most of these planets have a stagnant, low-population society, where the level of technology is still at a similar level that it was at their kidnapping (mainly because of hostile aliens), some of these planets developed technology that is at a similar level to Earth.

These planets are usually protrayed to be somewhat less advanced than Earth, have a rundown look and don't feature things like vehicles and advertisements, so they end up looking like Eastern European countries under Communism. Good examples for these is the 8th season episode Icon, and the 9th season episode Ethon, where the inhabitants of the planet Tegalus developed a society and technology level that is similar to the Soviet Union in the 1980s. If a human from Earth was transported to one of these planets, he wouldn't immediately think he was not on Earth.

This got me thinking, if the above really happened (humans from the Middle Ages and earlier were transported to another Earth-like planet and developed modern technology there) how different would their settlements, structures etc. look like compared to Earth.

Three things that would also happen there I think are settlements organized into streets, since either something similar existed in their society on Earth, or they would discover on the planet that its more efficient than building houses haphazardly, street lighting, which reduces crime after dark, and self-propelled vehicles without which a modern society couldn't work.

Do you think something like this could be a believeable picture taken on another Earth-like planet inhabited by humans?

[Seret]

That picture you linked to shows a society using concrete and steel to make buildings, with an electricity grid and able to work with metals cheaply enough to use them for street lighting poles. The clothes appear to be synthetic fibres, so that means a confident grasp of chemistry. That's a fully modern society to me.

For a bit of a clue just look at the various civilisations scattered around the globe prior to the modern age. Jared Diamond wrote a good book called "Guns, Germs and Steel" that investigates how and why some societies advanced more quickly than others. A lot of it is about access to resources (minerals, livestock, plants, etc). If a medieval society were transported to a world where they didn't have easy access to metals it's not hard to imagine they'd struggle to progress. Just look at the Polynesians all the way up to about the 1800s. They had a socially well-developed society which on the bigger islands (Hawaii, New Zealand) had developed into a feudal system, and they had some very sophisticated technologies (long distance navigation) but their society was stuck using stone and wood for tools and weapons. They were a medieval society stuck with stone age technology, and it's hard to imagine them getting past that point easily.

So whether the society would progress to modern standards or would be stuck at the same level as the Polynesians or the South and Central American civilisations depends entirely on what resources are available to them on this new world. Would they have the right plants for agriculture and forestry? The right animals to domesticate for beasts of burden and transport? The right metals to make tools and weapons? In our own history these have been what gave some societies the ability to leapfrog ahead of others.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Seret

[Jesrad]

Do you think something like this could be a believeable picture taken on another Earth-like planet inhabited by humans?

Well, since it is an actual, genuine picture of Earth inhabited by humans, why yes, I am 100% certain it is such an accurate depiction of earth-like planet inhabited by humans

If you know about the Sliders TV series that might make you familiar with Everett's multiverse theory. There is a simple way to resolve the observer's effect: start considering the observer's consciousness as capable of superposed quantum states too. Which means that the universe at large is an ever-growing superposition of every possible states it can take at any given moment, starting from the Big Bang onward. Those states, or branches, or timelines, all start at the same point, but diverge later on, with different branches being associated with different quantum states for a given particle. Basically, all the different decisions and random outcomes all happen, in parallel, all the time and everywhere.

Your question amounts to "what may those other timelines look like ?" It's a classic theme in science-fiction.

There's an alternate history of the world where China tried to settle the pacific islands and America's east coast (starting with the region of Chile and Columbia) in the 15th century. That introduces the gunpowder and some lesser diseases there "early on" compared to our history, and completely changes everything that happens from then on.

There's another in which Greece remains prominent instead of being absorbed by Rome, forming the Oikumene that eventually encompasses all of Europe and northern Africa. Heron of Alexandria perfects his steam machine, electricity (with magnetism) is properly discovered and harnessed, their

get more and more complex until they reach informational science proper by 100AD, rational medecine is rapidly built onto Hippocrate's pioneering works and the industrial revolution happens almost two millenia in advance, abolishing slavery early on. Computers become commonplace by the 5th century, and the first men land on the Moon in the 6th. Edited August 29, 2014 by Jesrad

[Scotius]

The size of starter population would certainly matter a lot. I've read somewhere that for colonisation purposes population of 12 000 is necessary to maintain full genetic diversity. If you have less, then you will experience more or less severe inbreeding. Take that with a grain of salt though - i don't remember where i've read this, and i'm not sure if it's accurate.

Another matter is ability to trade goods and ideas with neighbouring cultures - or rather lack of which. Commerce had a huge impact on development of modern world, and history had proven that isolated tribes/nations tend to remain stagnant.

[magnemoe]

The size of starter population would certainly matter a lot. I've read somewhere that for colonisation purposes population of 12 000 is necessary to maintain full genetic diversity. If you have less, then you will experience more or less severe inbreeding. Take that with a grain of salt though - i don't remember where i've read this, and i'm not sure if it's accurate.

Another matter is ability to trade goods and ideas with neighbouring cultures - or rather lack of which. Commerce had a huge impact on development of modern world, and history had proven that isolated tribes/nations tend to remain stagnant.

Lots of species is less than 12000 individuals. 12000 or less isolated geographically is very common. I have read 500 long term and 50 short term.

Technology is another issue, you need a lots of people to run an technological civilization. 50 would be stone age, 50 would be medieval to 1700, 12.000 give you enough people to have more specialists than a blacksmith and similar, however it would be no point in mass production of many products.

Automated production would reduce the number needed at least until the automated facility breaks down and they cant make spare parts.

[Idobox]

In regard to the OP.

Some cultures don't really have streets, they build houses that touch each other, and travel on the roofs. In case the civilization decides to dig their settlement (exists on Earth too), the concept of street becomes blurry, and cities are built more or less in 3D.

Street lighting existed before electric lights, with gas or oil lamps, and probably more rudimentary methods even before. The thing is, it's very expensive without electricity, and so restricted the main axes. DEpending on the technology level and access to resources, you can get from total darkness to self illuminating roads.

The thing with Stargate civilizations is that they're not particularly well designed, because that's not the point of the show. If humans can survive on a planet for 2000 years, they will not live only within 20km of where their Alien overlords dropped them, they will colonize the planet in mere centuries, reproducing like rabbits, causing cultural, politic and technological spread. And the Goa'Uld would have no reason to stop them, since it would mean more slaves and resources to exploit.

[crubs]

Place humans on other continents and do they cultures develop to look the same? No. There are cultural analogs, but oftentimes divergence occurs and creates an entirely new culture. I would consider that photograph practically impossible for another world.

[Brethern]

The size of starter population would certainly matter a lot. I've read somewhere that for colonisation purposes population of 12 000 is necessary to maintain full genetic diversity. If you have less, then you will experience more or less severe inbreeding. Take that with a grain of salt though - i don't remember where i've read this, and i'm not sure if it's accurate.

Another matter is ability to trade goods and ideas with neighbouring cultures - or rather lack of which. Commerce had a huge impact on development of modern world, and history had proven that isolated tribes/nations tend to remain stagnant.

Assuming you have complete control over the breeding and are ok with breaking every so called taboo you probably could start with only three people. Assuming of course the female isn't going to be losing her ability bear children in a handful of years.

[crubs]

Given that the individuals are carefully selected, you would only need two, though it's less than ideal. A little bit of inbreeding actually isn't a bad thing in terms of population genetics. Those who've studied population genetics know that inbreeding actually accelerates the evolution of a species. It weeds out harmful alleles and encourages fixation of hidden beneficial alleles.

This may eliminate genetic diversity, but eventually the population would evolve it's own unique racial characteristics.

[Brethern]

Given that the individuals are carefully selected, you would only need two, though it's less than ideal. A little bit of inbreeding actually isn't a bad thing in terms of population genetics. Those who've studied population genetics know that inbreeding actually accelerates the evolution of a species. It weeds out harmful alleles and encourages fixation of hidden beneficial alleles.

This may eliminate genetic diversity, but eventually the population would evolve it's own unique racial characteristics.

That's actually incorrect, close ties interbreeding which is what you would get with only two people is the bad thing. Cousins and beyond are ok, from a genetic standpoint.

[crubs]

That's actually incorrect, close ties interbreeding which is what you would get with only two people is the bad thing. Cousins and beyond are ok, from a genetic standpoint.

Nope, I'm right. Again, those two people must be carefully selected. If you can ensure that they aren't heterozygous for 'harmful' alleles, there isn't a problem. In fact, it could actually prove beneficial since beneficial alleles will fixate at an accelerated rate. All this is mathematically demonstrable.

[Brethern]

Nope, I'm right. Again, those two people must be carefully selected. If you can ensure that they aren't heterozygous for 'harmful' alleles, there isn't a problem. In fact, it could actually prove beneficial since beneficial alleles will fixate at an accelerated rate. All this is mathematically demonstrable.

I don't suppose you have a link for that?

[crubs]

I don't suppose you have a link for that?

And why do I need one exactly? This is a rather simple mathematical concept. We can practically prove it right here with a thought experiment:

For our model, we can simply reduce the genes in our population to one.

Mate 1:

Aa

Mate 2:

AA

The lower case letter represent a recessive allele that proves lethal before birth. Mate one has a 50/50 chance of passing either allele, meaning have the children produced by this couple will by this couple will be (on average), half AA and half Aa. Assuming random mating, heterozygotes have a 50% chance of mating with another heterozygote for the allele.

If we look at out punnet squares we see there is a 1/4 chance of having a homozygous recessive child. Since in our model aa children result in miscarriage, we’ll assume the couple will simply have another child to replace them until their family is of average size.

If generation two is Aa+Aa, then generation three will be 1/3 AA and 2/3 Aa.

Assuming they have 6 kids, 2 of them will be AA and 4 of them will be Aa. If we count the alleles individually, we have 8 copies of the ‘A’ allele, and 4 copies of the ‘a’ allele overall. The ‘a’ allele in this generation has decreased in frequency by 1/6 from their parental generation of Aa+Aa, where the alleles were of equal frequency.

Long-story-short, what we have done here is increased the statistical certainty of producing homozygous individuals, in doing so, we expose the hidden recessive allele to the eyes of natural selection which allows for a rapid weeding of this harmful allele.

Of course, if we are to choose two individuals we could simply ensure that the couple is simply homozygous-dominant for both traits (AA+AA). In humans, we simply expand this logic to many more genes and, in theory, we could eliminate the existence of all harmful alleles in a single generation. Inbreeding could occur constantly and no negative effects are likely to occur for many generations. We actually observe this in some domestic breeds which are heavily inbred, that I can link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_breeding_organism

“A pure-bred variety of cat, such as Siamese, only produces kittens with Siamese characteristics because their ancestors were inbred until they were homozygous for all of the genes that produce the physical characteristics and temperament associated with the Siamese breed.â€Â

This means that true-breeding Siamese cats can be inbred repetitively and experience no significant health problems.

Feel free to check my math, while it was never my strong point, I did well on my evolutionary biology’s population genetics exam. Much of this I can’t cite because I learned it at my university as opposed to studying it online. Look up “Allele A1†if you want a simplified computer model of population genetics.

Otherwise, I’m happy to demonstrate the concept further with other mathmatic models. I can show how a allele doesn’t have to be lethal for the same concept to apply, and also how hidden beneficial alleles are capable of rapidly rising to fixation by the help of inbreeding. But it’s all based on the same logic.

[Jesrad]

Nope, I'm right.

No you're not. The absolute minimum is 160 natural, or 80 if you get to tell people who to procreate with. 2 people could not maintain genetic diversity across a single generation.

[Sky_walker]

You are both right.

crubs is right assuming that 2 selected people don't have any harmful genes (which is borderline impossible to know for sure, as 1) we don't know all of the genes causing disorders or susceptibility to diseases and 2) genes can stay dormant for generations). Basic logic behind it: you can't develop Haemophilia if none of your parents got a gene responsible for it.

Jesrad is right assuming realistically possible selection - and we can't tell for sure which genes are good and which are bad in a long-term cross-breeding perspective. There's plenty of disorders that we cannot link to the specific genes just yet (Basic logical example: various types of cancer - we know about genes behind some, but not all, nor how exactly genes affect probability of each cancer type) and selection of these people will realistically affect survival or death of your "colony". Therefore logically safe minimum size of a colony would be the one presented in a study.

Also - sometimes having a person with "impure" genes from a perspective of diseases might be more desirable as he might have much more attractive genes from other perspectives, like intellect, empathy or muscle strength (wildly assuming we agree that these are at least partially linked to the genes, as many, if not majority, disagrees)

In either case - having more people is better. Safer. For many reasons, not just genetic disorders, but also things like resistance of a population to the viruses (you don't want everyone die on a first flu epidemic), or even simple psychological reasons - humans want to have partners for a life time and want to have children with them - attempts to fully control that are doomed to fail, and a lack of proper control might endanger an entire colony. Also smaller populations would be much more affected by any cases of unexpected death before contributing to the genetic poll or any random mutations or disorders (you don't want to end up with a population which after a 100 generations ends up with 1/3 of people dying before their 50s on a cancer).

That said though - selecting 2 ideal candidates might give you a stable colony assuming few things... for example: they live long enough to give birth at least to the 3rd generation and after 3rd generation reaches maturity - colony splits into groups (at least 2) with partners as distant genetically from each other as possible and go very far away in the opposite directions with an intention not to meet each other for at least several next generations. Each of these groups would also preferably have to split at some point in a similar fashion. This would ensure that accidents, like diseases (which are the highest risk due to low genetic diversity), massive fires, floods, etc. cannot wipe your colonists in an instant and that genetic variability develops over time in a different directions (eg. people living in a hot climate over dozens (hundreds?) of generations will adjust to that better that these living in a cold climate).

Genetic diversity can do miracles. There are people immune to AIDS. Something that on a first glance might be considered impossible knowing that we don't have any cure for that.

So you don't really want to get rid of it. The more people you have - the better (as long as you don't overcrowd).

Edited August 30, 2014 by Sky_walker

[Seret]

Which version of a gene is preferable is also situational (sickle cell springs to mind). Hence the need for diversity.

[crubs]

I am absolutely right in regards to the fact that a cosmic Adam and Eve scenario is a feasible one. Your not wrong in the fact that this would eliminate genetic diversity. Genetic diversity is definitely a thing you want, but it isn't absolutely necessary. Eventually mutations would arise and our population would develop its own form of genetic diversity. That's how evolution works.

Thanks for your post sky_walker.

[Aningaaq]

Predicting the future of a society is feasible I guess, but mostly a disappointment. Most reputable anthropologists and ethnographers stay away from this type of discussion. It's fun for the sake of fiction but when you're dealing with real people then...good luck! I don't think any science in the world is capable of answering such a question. Although, every science would benefit greatly by studying a society that is isolated.

You might be able to compare these hypothetical people (to real societies) if you provided other details such as the environment, the knowledge each of the inhabitants has, etc.