Spyke

Replies

Comment on

Generations

Reply in thread

Yeah, basically a brand new species behaving like an infestation in an abundance of (mostly finite) resources, not building sustainable socioeconomic systems that would allow for social & scientific advancements in absence of "infinite™" growth of imaginary numbers (eg gdp).

Far away from Star Trek even when we have those ideals theoretically available to us. (That's why transporting knowledge back in time wouldn't necessary be of use.)

Comment on

Generations

Reply in thread

How do you get iron ore in quantities that would allow to build anything worth building & maintaining?
(And what would you possibly use a resource-extremely-hungry steam engine for that needs to be fed that a wooden watermill couldn't do? You would need to build up society/economy even to justify a usecase for a watermill, otherwise you just build a monument.)

You could build an electric battery 10k years ago, but what for?

Where do you get species directly suitable for animal husbandry?

Or ppl to produce & use higiene products?

I can go on but in short there's loads of knowledge pretty much anyone can bring to 10k years ago that changes lives significantly.

I absolutely agree with that.

Comment on

Generations

Reply in thread

Smart, but you would need to be in specific area to get chickens (south Asia?) & goats (middle East?) suitable for domestication, which would still take several human generations to achieve - so in your lifetime you would just pass the knowledge (in case someone was interested) but otherwise live your life without seeing the results.

It's not like livestock domestication didn't start about asap after there were conditions for it (cities, stable food production, some bureaucracy/specialisation/trade, etc)etc.

Comment on

Generations

Reply in thread

I absolutely agree (I didn't say it wouldn't change things), but the first decades/generation would still be pretty basic, much of the knowledge wouldn't be applicable until you build your tools, get basics sorted, build safety nets, etc.

For everything you need a willing society bcs one individual can't do it all - it's either you dig/build one well & others feed you or you do the efforts communally. Same with metalwork, that's a whole specialisation in the most basic sense (you need a workforce & resources for them to gather ore, work it, and forge anything of useful size - metalwork to produce a few grammes of metal per year isn't worth it, so you need a city-sized community at your disposal, and you need to get to that point ... unless maybe as an expensive way to just pass the knowledge for later gens to put it to good use, which might be successful, unless forgotten or the community doesn't survive).

Animal domestication can take generations too in some cases (bovids), you need to first focus on docile females, and once they stay in a designated area (either like a valley or even fenced fields), you need the resources (food) to keep them alive there. So you need to build up agriculture at scale first. That why we found the first real domestication evidence around ancient cities, not random villages.

Comment on

Generations

Reply in thread

I absolutely agree (I didn't say it wouldn't change things), but the first decades/generation would still be pretty basic, much of the knowledge wouldn't be applicable until you build your tools, get basics sorted, build safety nets, etc.

I'm trying to make the distinction between the ability to just 'make' as a proof of concept & actually apply that knowledge at scale that makes any difference in that accident context. Like metalwork - without (smol-)city-sized communities (labour, and accumulated resources like winter food & shelters) it doesn't make sense bcs you don't end up with enough use-cases.

(Ofc immediate location is a great factor in what knowledge is more applicable and what not - surviving in the Arctic circle would be much different to the some savannah).