John_Maxwell_IV comments on Open Thread, September 1-15, 2012 - Less Wrong

6 Post author: OpenThreadGuy 01 September 2012 08:13AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (353)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: evand 01 September 2012 05:49:24PM 13 points [-]

The oxidizing atmosphere is not due to chance. It was created by early life that exhaled oxygen, and killed off its neighbors that couldn't handle it. Hence, I don't think the goldilocks oxygen levels speak much to great filter questions.

Early in civilization, we used wood and charcoal as energy sources. Blacksmithing and cast iron were originally done with wood charcoal. Cast iron is a very important tool in our history of machine tools and hence the industrial revolution. It's possible that we could have carried on without coal, instead using large-scale forestry management or other biomass as our energy source. In the early 1700s there were already environmental concerns about deforestation. They were more related to continued supply of wood for charcoal and hunting grounds than "ecological" concerns, but there were still laws and regulations enacted to deal with the problem.

How many people do we need to support a high-tech civilization? I suspect fewer than we tried it with. It's quite possible that biofuel sources would have produced a high tech civilization, just slower and with fewer people.

Also, note that biofuels can produce all the lubricants and plastics you need just fine. The Fischer-Tropsch process has been implemented on a large scale before.

I think that given all this, you could get the modern metal lathe and the steam engine without fossil fuels. We already harnessed basic water and wind power without fossil fuels. I suspect with modern machine tools you get to electricity and large-scale water and wind power generation, even without fossil fuels. Again, more slowly, and possibly without so many people, but I think you can get there.

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 01 September 2012 11:10:36PM 4 points [-]

Well, one point is that supposedly there were a lot of societal factors that also had to be in place for the industrial revolution to take place. (Apparently if you lived anywhere but Britain, if you were doing anything cool, the ruling monarch would come along and just take it.) So it's not necessarily just tech.

Another point is that Earth appears to have periodic ice ages, and many/most human civilizations seem to collapse after a while. So sustaining progress over long periods is nontrivial.

Comment author: [deleted] 03 September 2012 07:08:40AM 3 points [-]

Well, one point is that supposedly there were a lot of societal factors that also had to be in place for the industrial revolution to take place.

Environmental ones too. Britain had to be so short of wood and charcoal to burn that using coal in home stoves, even with its nasty byproducts, was preferably to most people going without any source of burnable fuel. The widespread proliferation of coal that followed to meet the demand meant there was plenty of it about to turn to other purposes.