(OT) Monte Cook's most recent rant.....

[alsih2o]

The reason we don't know all these things is because we don't have to. Why would I need to know how to skin a deer with a grocery store right down the street?

realize what a position of privilege you are talking from here, when i grew up (i am only in my early 30's) school was the only place i got a meal i hadn't raised, planted, or shot.

and lots of folks in my hometown are still the same way.

 

[Uller]

The masses have been fed television, media exposition, convenience, and simplicity for as long as such things were possible. I guess I have a unique perspective as I have little to no access to television (I don't even own one), and I don't do much on the internet itself. People always want something better, faster, and more efficiently, because they are told it's better that way.

I'm sorry...this is a complete load of bull. People like technology because it IS better. Not because they are brainwashed into believing it. As society advances, we spend less and less time doing what is needed (gathering and growing food, building shelter, etc.) and more time doing what we want (studying science, understanding human nature, enjoying hobbies). Without technology, we couldn't support the population. Which means you likely wouldn't exist and if you did, you'd spend all day every day searching for food and a safe place to sleep. How exactly would that be better than whatever it is you are doing now? (browsing the web and probably not too concerned about where your next meal is coming from).

If a specific technological device doesn't make people's lives easier, then they won't use it. For instance...I've been seeing ads for "The Perfect Pancake Maker" all over TV. Now...I like pancakes. I make em almost every weekend. Am I going to rush out and buy one because my TV told me to? I don't think so. Clearly the device doesn't make my life any easier (and it probably doesn't even work)...I'm completely capable of flipping a pancake in a frying pan by tossing it and catching it or with a spatual. Some people will probably buy it, realize it is not worth it and the device will die a proper death and be forgotten on the junk heap of history. Lots of devices that didn't deliver what they promised have suffered such a fate (probably more inventions fail than succeed).

Am I worried that I've become dependant on technology? No. If society goes to pot and I'm forced to learn to hunt and fend for myself, I could (I had some survival training in the military and in scouts). This assumes I survive the initial mass die out of humanity as without technology and a societal infrastructure, we couldn't produce or gather enough food to support our current population. Humans are still basically the same beings they were 100,000 years ago. The old skills would re-emerge and society would begin anew.

 

[Furn_Darkside]

I'd love a book on that -- what a modern scientist could do with no modern technology -- but I haven't been able to find anything.

Salutations,

I would love to see a book like that as well, but I have yet to see one, but along those lines...

The Dechronization of Sam Magruder (1997) - George G. Simpson

It is an interesting little novel about a man being sent back to the time of dinosaurs, and what he does to survive.

Wilderness Survival by Gregory J. Davenport

Wilderness Living by Gregory J. Davenport

These two books were suggested to me as good books to have a round for the end of the world.

FD

 

[alsih2o]

Re: Re: (OT) Monte Cook's most recent rant.....

. Which means you likely wouldn't exist and if you did, you'd spend all day every day searching for food and a safe place to sleep.

actually, several studies have shown that the avg hunter/gatherer spends about 14 hours a week at "survival" tasks...

 

[Morose]

Which is already the case with computers, BTW: don't worry Monte, if your computer goes seriously broken, even a technician (hell, even the Intel R&D chief) would just tell you "dude, it was old anyway, get a new one. With a geforce 9..."

LOL! Great post Zappo.

 

[Zappo]

It's certainly normal, but it's still odd that most people have no idea how a car works or how a radio or TV works. These are major, major parts of our lives.

It's odd AND normal at the same time. Now that's odd!

This reminds me, does anyone know of any books on technology from the ground up? Like how to build things starting from scratch?

Weeell, it depends. You can probably find books about how to get half-decent steel from iron and coal, but for semiconductors, synthetic fibers and kevlar, knowledge is not enough. You need facilities. To build those, you need more books, and more people. You can't be able to make everything by yourself. It would take several lifetimes.

Huh? How much preserved food do you think is out there? And how do you think you'll get your hands on it after a societal breakdown?

Lots and lots, assuming that 95% of the population is gone. And if that isn't the case, then producing more food isn't a problem, because you have the manpower and knowledge to do it. Oh, the initial lack of tech would make the whole thing less efficient for some time, but not to the point of starvation.

Certainly, in the short term, hunting for squirrels makes less sense than looting a grocery store, but after a few weeks, where do you expect food to come from?

From the next grocery store or supermarket. The more people have died, the more the reserves will last. The less people have died, the less time it will take to become able to replenish those reserves.

And wouldn't weapons certainly become an issue as soon as you found out where large amounts of food and fuel were stashed?

People in our society are not used to fight for food. They won't do it until the food really starts to run out. Which won't happen, if they act smart and immediately start restoring agriculture. If it comes to fight - it's unreasonable, but knowing mankind... - the fight won't be with clubs and spears, but with guns. Ammo reserves would last much, much longer than food.

 

[mmadsen]

Re: Re: (OT) Monte Cook's most recent rant.....

As society advances, we spend less and less time doing what is needed (gathering and growing food, building shelter, etc.) and more time doing what we want (studying science, understanding human nature, enjoying hobbies).

Amusingly, a century ago experts were predicting that we'd all (by now) live a life of leisure, working a few hours a week. After all, with our increased productivity, we'd only need to work those few hours to have everything we need!

Of course, modern Americans actually work longer hours than they used to. (At the very least, they certainly don't work just a few hours a week.)

Without technology, we couldn't support the population. Which means you likely wouldn't exist and if you did, you'd spend all day every day searching for food and a safe place to sleep. How exactly would that be better than whatever it is you are doing now?

Actually, primitive hunters didn't necessarily spend that much time hunting; they just couldn't support that many people per unit of land.

 

[Furn_Darkside]

People in our society are not used to fight for food.

Err.. I have seen fights break out at supermarkets when blizzards are scheduled to arrive.

I have heard that supermarkets in Florida can be pretty darn hostile when hurricanes are coming through.

And neither of them situations are end-of-the-world scenarioes.

FD

 

[mmadsen]

These two books were suggested to me as good books to have a round for the end of the world.

The one book I do have that touches on this is Primitive Technology: A Book of Earth Skills. It teaches flint-knapping, basket-weaving, etc.

I love the whole concept of experimental anthropology. How do you make a flint spearhead? Try it! Since you know it's possible, you'll probably figure it out.

 

[Zappo]

Yes. Don't forget the strong, independent woman, her ex-husband (the grizzly, well-greased hero), the black guy, the kid, the politician, the survivalist, and the movie star. Then, they learn to work together through various trials, and a trite little cliché ex-spousal reunion occurs.

If that's sarcasm, I've completely missed it.

Seriously, 99% of NYC dead means, what?, 100000 people left? Out of 100000 random urban people, there are some who (together) can make a decent power plant, given enough time.

I think that the question shouldn't be whether we have the skills to survive this scenario, but rather do we have the mental toughness to adapt to the scenario.

Yep, that's the real problem. Luckily, the same sense of safety we're denigrating would IMO prevent most people from immediately jumping at each other's throaths, at least as long as food lasts.Since most people are terribly afraid of losing civilization, they would naturally cling to it as hard as they can.