How much can we lose?

[anemian]

In science fiction novels it's ever so common for science/technology to "drift" backwards a few hundred years over a period of time. With this in mind I want to apply this to the real.
____

For this the first question we need to ask is if it is possible under some circumstance or another to somehow "drift" backwards or even "fall"?

I'd say the answer is obviously yes to some extent or another. If you lose every microprocessor in the world I'd imagine it'd be very difficult to get new ones back to the same level any time soon. Like wise you could even go more drastic with something like an Adam and Eve event where you lose many more things including people.

So the next thing we have to ask if the previous statement is true is exactly how much can we lose before we can't recover anytime soon?

Right now it would be relatively hard to strike at individual people because any "master" can be replaced with someone better within 10 years. You also can't target infrastructure because there's just too much of it. I can't see a viral infection of any kind really working because even with things like the plague going on science and tech still advanced a little. I also can't see a war working because some tech actually advances faster during those periods.

So any other ideas, flaws in my thinking, or something else?

 

[Invoke Ninja's True Power]

We've become dependent on the computer to make more computers. I can see the downfall in this.

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

Another 'dark age' is possible and perhaps immenent. It's actually a good long term way of refreshing society. The Renaissance would not have happened without the first dark age. As long as there's monks hidden away in towers keeping the old knowledge alive, eventually society will rediscover the old ways and can keep or reject that which they think will be best.

 

[Invoke Ninja's True Power]

There's an ancient Egyptian temple that when you look at the layout from overhead resembles a microprocessor. Can't remember the name of it.

 

[Morel Panic]

Another 'dark age' is possible and perhaps immenent. It's actually a good long term way of refreshing society. The Renaissance would not have happened without the first dark age. As long as there's monks hidden away in towers keeping the old knowledge alive, eventually society will rediscover the old ways and can keep or reject that which they think will be best.

I think that society needs/deserves another dark age. It seems like no one is interested in producing things anymore, just bossing around people and shuffling around the value created by the few creative individuals.

 

[flow]

Yeah I would argue not only is it possible, it's happened several times. If you look at some of the ancient egyptian technology and technologies in mayan civilizations and such, even greek, there are many instances of them having advanced 'computers' and 'light bulbs' and things that took the west hundreds more years to 'discover'. I wish I didn't have to speak in generalities, but I know there are several instances of technology advancing in circles. One civilization creates something great, only for it to be lost and recreated later on.

Also, in the latest transhumanism thread I argued essentially for another dark age. I've never wanted to see the demise of humans, but I fear the rise of computers (sorry Cog). As much as I love the internet and its enabling of me to communicate with other like minded individuals like you, I'd never be opposed to going back to a more, for lack of a better word, organic way of life. Ehn... whatever, I'm just going with the flow of life, as long as it continues I care not the path that it takes.

 

[Artifice Orisit]

We've become dependent on the computer to make more computers. I can see the downfall in this.

We're dependent humans to make more humans. I can see the downfall in this.

but I fear the rise of computers (sorry Cog)

*Muh ha ha moment*
Reduce the global human population by about 6 billion, and then you can start considering a world without computers, until then people are going to do everything they can to support and develop the existing global technology infrastructure.

Screw history, nothing short of global catastrophe is going to rob us of technology, society has never before reached the level it has now, and I don't see any way we could go back.

The only thing we have to fear is our fear of technology itself.

 

[Cogwulf]

Short of a major catastrophic event such as a meteor hitting earth or a worldwide nuclear war, the only thing which is going to cause any decline in our technology will be a shortage of fossil fuels before we've found a viable alternative. And even so, no technology would be lost or destroyed, it would just become unusable. All energy available from alternative sources would be directed to essentials such as food production and government, and depending on the state of the world at the time the fossil fuel shortage started, it could be decades until the economy could support a computer and a 40inch TV in the average home.

 

[anemian]

Lack of fuel, now there is an interesting concept.

Though that doesn't really lose technology it just makes it unpractical for half a generation or less. Which would mean that if it really set us back it would be a social reason that did so rather than anything else.

 

[Zaij]

Most we'd lose is up to right before the industrial age, so mid-late 19th?

 

[Vrecknidj]

Short of a major catastrophic event such as a meteor hitting earth or a worldwide nuclear war, the only thing which is going to cause any decline in our technology will be a shortage of fossil fuels before we've found a viable alternative.

I agree that a major catastrophe would do the trick (super volcano, asteroid, elimination of nitrogen-fixing bacteria, huge solar disruption, etc.). I disagree about fossil fuels. Collectively, we're not going to run out of coal for 200 years anyway, and, even if we did, we could get nuclear up and running on a massive scale in 10 years without losing too much.

And even so, no technology would be lost or destroyed, it would just become unusable. All energy available from alternative sources would be directed to essentials such as food production and government, and depending on the state of the world at the time the fossil fuel shortage started, it could be decades until the economy could support a computer and a 40inch TV in the average home.

But, your general points, I think, are roughly what I would have said had you not beaten me to it.



Dave

 

[Invoke Ninja's True Power]

We will always lose as long as money is disproportionate to natural resources. If money were more reflective of the state of nature the economy would have collapsed decades/centuries ago.