Human Social Evolution (in the face of civilization collapse)

I wonder what about the end of a civilization would make matches stop working..

My point being, even in the face of the fall of a civilization, we have access to resourses and information. Suppose we do run out of matches, what stops us from using modern know-how to start a fire another way?If only one in 1000 has the nessessary ability to accomplish a goal, all it takes is one to teach others.

You misrepresent my statement, let me explain. When I said, "all it takes is one to teach others." I am making a referance to the first part of the sentance that says, "If only one in 1000 has the nessessary ability to accomplish a goal," and is not making any referance to anything else let alone any environmental factors.Never the less, I'll play along..First, lets define "civilization." ..It is safe to assume that the 3rd definition of civilization is applicable, considering Europe is only one specific place in the world. (correct me if my understanding is wrong.)Now, using this paradigm, lets observe a hypothedical situation where the colapse of civilization in Italy (Sticking with the Rome theme)has occured and address the questions. Considering our current technological state, sharing information (and to an extent skills) with the rest of the world is not only possible, but practiced almost world-wide. The question becomes not 'if' we can, but 'what' we can share. For example, is the knowledge freely given, or is it withheld?Now for your specific concerns; Do you assume there are no areas in which someone isn't trying to steal something 100% of the time? I certainly don't assume there are no areas in which someone is trying to steal something 100% of the time, and I certainly never said it would be an easy task. Do you assert that mobs and killing sprees will be so widespread for a thousand years? In your views of a post civilization meltdown, are people inherantly malicious and evil? Even in 'lawless' areas of the world, riots, mobs, killings, etc.. don't occure all the time.I would apply the same logic I used for the previous statement. And do you assume such principals would be lost to everyone in the event of civilizations fall? I would like to see your evidence to support this if this is the case. In many 'lawless' places in the world, such thinking is not absent from everyone. Do you presume I do? Explain.

Indeed, you have.. I'm more asking for a clarification on these statements then anything else. As am I, which is why I attempted to explain my understanding via a model of a post-civilization experience, I fully admit I may be wrong but this is how I currently understand the scenario. Then my paradigm still fits, unless I've missed something. Here is where I come into a road block, however..Without knowing how the civilization fell in the first place, how can the question be addressed beyond this point?

I'm afraid my time on the internet is limited today, so I will not be able to respond to your message until I have a bit more time. You did raise a few good points and a few I would like to contest once I have the time.Until then..

Contextual jumping around? It may be my perspective speaking, but I don't see how I was doing said 'jumping'. If thats what you percieved, then I apologise, but my interest was genuine.I left the model vague for the specific reason that the quote you made of me addresses, I was hoping the author of the OP would fill in some blanks.If you are leaving the topic, I certainly don't consider it a win.. I was attempting to pick your brain, not win a contest.Good luck!

I absolutly agree.. Now this makes things a bit more interesting, now not only do we have the fall of civilization in our scenario, but now we have the demise of infrastructure. For the sake of argument, whatever occured caused the immediate fall of infrastructure.. Yes, and if were speaking of personal or unique information and skills, then I agree. The differance is in our technological age, there is very little knowledge that has not breached the digital realm, for that matter, I know of no skill that is not practiced in almost every other country in the world. I fail to see how using a computer to solve an equation is 'sheer brute force' but I do get your point, I just disagree. I have come across few people who could not perform at least basic math without the use of a computer. One of the benifits of public education. No, I haven't. I will soon now that I've head of it. Thank you for that.Unfortunatly, in the story you described, unless I misread, this fall of civilization was on a global scale where as this paradigm is on a relitive local scale. I don't see why not, considering the local infrastructure may be gone, but the global infrastructure is still existing. It seems to me that it would be just a matter of time. The first few generations may forget much, but it is only a matter of time before the rest of the world presses its influance. I agree, however, like I pointed out earlier, there is still an infrastructure on the global scale. Over a 1000 years is a long time for the rest of the world to not have any influance over the lost civilization. Are you forgetting this paradigm is only a relitivly local event? The rest of the world still exists. One could only guess.. I wouldn't even know where to begin addressing this train of thought. I'm afraid you've lost me..

No problem at all, all I care about is content which you clearly provide. I'm glad, for a bit there, I was feeling truely baffled. I thought I had missed something entirely.My misunderstandiong of your analogy stems from the equating using a computer with being necessarily 'brute force.' Your explaination clears that up for me.Now, concerning your examples.. Contrary to them, most people in a modern civilization can perform basic math. I'm not saying they won't struggle, but necessity does tend to bring out ability in people. This is my opinion, so for the sake of the argument lets assume your examples hold true in our scenario.Whats to stop the rest of the world from pressing their influence?Let's not forget, this is in regards to the survival of knowledge and skills not the civilization itself. If all of Italy falls everywhere else in the world still retains their skills and knowledge regardless. [qs]OK, I guess the wine is kicking in sooner than I thought it would. To summarize, my basic points were:1. Before we did everything the way we do now, we did it some other way. If we lose our current technology, then in order to do the same things, we will need to revert back to that older way.[qs] Why would we need to revery to the older way when the new way still exists? I'll agree that it might be necessary for the first bit, but it wouldn't be long before the rest of the world moves in or builds the civilization back up. Isn't this a bit presumtuous of you? Many people know the "older ways" and that they existed. More importaintly, books containing these math tricks and "older ways" are in circulation. Not everybody is so heavily reliant on computers as you think. Our current technology allows us to solve problems intelligently as well as through brute force. Sometimes (often, with the techniques we have invented) brute force is the intelligent metheod. Do you assume the rest of the world will sit idly by and just watch for generations? I think not. A "post-apocalpse future" is an entirely differant scenario, were talking about the fall of civilization. This story is irrellivent to the topis as it consists of an entirely unique paradigm to the one being discussed.

Nothing, which is kind of my point. Do you assume that modern politics work the same way as the politics of the past? Or how about the comparisant in communication technologies? Warfare? Transportation?If you're not compairing how the Eastern Empire acted to how modern countries would act, then what was the relivence of this? Another time then.. Once again, nothing.. Thats the point. Being "completely on your own" is irrellevent. Its a non-variable. The question pertained to the survival of knowledge and skills, not the rebuild of a political structure. This, too, is an irrillevent point. I agree, but as I've said.. its an irrillevent point.

"Obvious" implies that the scenario was clearly defined, which it was not. Using the example given by the OP, I presented a logicly sound reasoning as to how I interpreted the meaning whie admiting I could be wrong and asking for a clarification if one believed it were so. Show me where my reasoning was flawed. I would like to hear your reasoning for this as well, considering we havent discovered or discussed what caused the fall of the civilization in the first place. Consider how long it takes a small community to recover after a natural disaster, now add to the effect how long it would have taken them without an outside source to help them such as their government. Local or global, the questions are still applicable until a new variable is introduced. I'm afraid you are only partially correct. Rome fell, true, but groups did flee Rome taking their customs, knowledge, skills, and insight with them. Explain how this constitutes isolation. I fail to see how restating my own argument back to me is helpful. Did you misunderstand what I meant by "global influance?" I was trying to be as direct as I could while still being honest(considering I don't know how other countries would react with an unknown fall of civilization.) That is, once again, kind of my point.. Granted, however, we arn't talking about a paradigm of ancient Rome, but of modern Rome(or as you've suggested, the USA). And restating my argument accomplishes..? Stating "therefore" doesn't make your argument sequential.You assert a global colapse.. Okay, I'm open to the possibility that I am wrong, however, the example demonstrates a local colapse. Pointing out my position to me over and over accomplishes nothing more then making your content look redundant. If I am wrong, then so be it, but where is the flaw to my logic? Actually.. No..Or should I start this off with a juvinial attempt to talk down to you with using a common phrase found in pop culture and signify its exaggeration with the use of several question marks.. No, I think I will step away from acting like I'm 12.Even in the face of global collapse, the two are not identical. Post-apocoliptic refers to a specific kind of fall of civilization. Take for example if every world government were to suddenly fail. This is a type of a fall of civilization, yet it is not apocoliptic by any definition. This is going to be good.. I'll explain that in a moment, but first, I notice you like to bring up a lot of non-sequential facts to illustrate a point. For example, the referance to not being a "trekkie" due to your lack vulcan ears. I'm wondering why you think this is relivent?Moving on.. I'm sorry, but your understanding of the scientific mindset is truely ignorant if you believe this to be true. This is not meant to be insulting, just an observation, let me explain..First of all, you made a statement with an assumption.
-that is was known for a fact that it was impossible to break the sound barrierThis is incorrect, durring this time period, we knew it was possible to go faster then the speed of sound because we had observed it in nature. Some species of birds are capible of breaking the sound barrier when in a steap enough decline in optimal conditions.Secondly, in science, it is never "impossible" to do anything, only degrees of improbible. For example, it is considered possible that the computer you are using to have spontainiously disassembled itself on the atomic level everytime you leave the room and reassemble before you return, but is it probible?Thirdly, we knew why the plains were destroyed everytime they attempted to exceed the sound barrier, we just didn't know how to work past this point yet. Glennis proved only the ignorant wrong, this feat had already been observed in nature. Once again, you are incorrect. Though we are not at the level of technology that the show hinted at, we have made a great deal of progress in devoloping these technologies.
-We've been able to teleport photons and other small particles over long distances
-3d holographic simulations, manipulated by the user in the enviroment and experienced tactile sensations via use of directed soundwaves. (holodeck)
-Models have been produced for matter restructuring technology as well math models for as faster then light travel.
-Quantium computers are right around the corner, in fact a few companies have made claims that they have already produced working prototypes.I'll admit that your knowledge of early American science fiction is impressive, but your understanding of what is out there today is not. Religion.. (off topic, I know, but it had to be said. See: The Dark Ages)Now, my question to you.. How is this rellivent?(sorry for the delay, internet time where I am is scarce at best and I have to copy/paste your posts when I get the chance and reply when I'm next on.)

So you have asserted, and it may be the case.. You still have not explained the flaw to my logic. To summarize, your arguments are made on an assumption, right or wrong your argument is weak. You assume once again. Weak argument. You're challenging me to math? Are you serious? First of all, I didn't have your math teacher, so how am I supposed to know what metheod they taught you? You want to know how I was taught? First, its irrellivent to the topic, second it would take more effort then I'm willing to give you, and third, theres no way for me to prove that I didnt "use an internet resource" and to be honest, you don't come accross as the type of person to trust my word sence you've clearly already made up your mind about it. I believe this sums it up pretty nice..

Not at all.. It is perfectly understandable that you have a life outside of an internet forum, thank you for responding at all. =DThank you, also, for clearing things up a bit for us.. I'll have to address this new model once I have more time. For now, I'll leave you with this.. We as a species, have something we did not have back in the past. Not only is our recorded knowledge widespread and easily accessable, but (the part that truely sets us apart) the ability to read and apply that information is not only almost as widespread, but has become a family tradition in most of the modern world to teach at home.

With all due respect, would you please stop acting like a child when someone disagrees with your premises? I am and have been addressing your arguments, the problem stems from your inability to functionaly present them in a manner that is both sequential and while restraining your temper.I know its asking much of you, but would you care to share an example of a "minutiae" that you are refering to?Continuing.. And so you resort to ad hominem attacks.. Pathedic.Lets break it down; As of yet, this first sentance tells me there is a challenge, but not yet any specifics as to whom you are addressing. Without any other source to tell me the challenge is for another party (perhaps hypothedical) I must assume you are issuing the challenge to me as I am the target of this conversation from your end. Specifics about the potential challenge have been given. parameters (however weak) have been made and defined. Finally, the last bit, a restriction on the challenge. As this is the last sentance of the paragraph, it is reasonable to assume that this is the challenge in its entirety.Even in placing me in your "situation" it is still a challenge of my math skills.. You are, afterall, challenging me to demonstrate how to use longhand to calculate the square root of a given number, thus.. math. I have demonstrated my thought processes in detail, ergo, I do think. Baseless insults wont work when I can break them down and demonstrate the fallacy. Might I recomend something akin to civility? I "got" that, I'm not challenging why you added that restriction to the challenge. Go back and read my post again. I'm stating how the challenge is a moot point as I believe you to be the kind of person who would not take my word when I say I did not use "any internet resources." As I have pointed out before, this is presumptious of you. You assume this to be the case, and for many it may be, however, your premise isn't based on real data but on a belief. Can you provide evidence to support this claim?Until then, I reject your premise. Like.. a book? Or someone who knows how to perform the same equation (assuming post-collapse man doesn't know)?Ohh, and to counter your last point, these courses are still printed in book format. I assume you are refering to a slipstick? I'm not sure which the real name is, but there is a kid on my street who uses one, though not used as much in favor of the more accurate and quick to process scientific calculator there are still many out there who know how to use them. This argument is only valid if you first assume the "post-collapse" man is unable to perform math without one.

Indeed, anything is open to interpretation especially when it is stated so vague. As I have stated all along, I have been open to the possibility that I was wrong. I'm honestly wondering if your reading comprehension failed you, you misrepresented my post to cause unnessessary ridicule, or if I just wasn't clear enough..The "Ex." at the begining of the qs'd area was there to identify it as an example to the statement made before it, which was;The next statement was made in conjunction with the first two parts.Thus;
Statement
Example of statement
then, follow-up question The problem is your understanding of the argument, your use of logical fallacys (non sequester and ad hominum to name a few), and your ability to make assumptions. Yes, and the OP (DBlevins) admited their example was misleading, you still have not shown me where the flaw to my logic was. Incorrect, I agreed to the premise, however at the time it was irrilevent. Until DBlevins made the clarification (after the fact, I might add) There was no reason to assume that anyone would not interfere. My reasoning for which has yet to be proven unsound, I'm still waiting. Ahem.. Provided the nature of being isolated is to be alone, then integrating into another culture is to be no longer isolated. Now, consider the context, I was refering to the Roman people, not the geological location or political power.The location and political power are irrellivent when the topic is about the survival of skills and knowledge.Are you using another definition of "isolation?" Irrelivent. Why are you so fixated on the rebuilding of a civilization when its non sequential to the argument?The argument was about the survival of the knowledge and skills, not that particular civilization. Not on hand, I did do a report on the subject in my freshman year of highschool, if I can find the paper, I'll be glad to cite the referances I used. It will take some time to find it, if I held onto it at all. Lets see if you pick up on it this time.. Bolded for emphasis. And restating a point that we both agreed on does.. what exactally? Once again, you are incorrect.. First, I made no ad hominem against you. Argumentum ad hominem is an argument directed at the person, I attacked your argument and presentation there of (a foundation of logical argumentation, might I add.) Second, the ironic part of it is, your very next statement was argumentum ad hominem against me. Playing along..Point 1) I partialy agree (in conjunction with point 2)
Point 2) I agree.
Point 3) A moot point, this could be associated as an extention of with point 2. Sorry to say, pointing out how your statements were horribly incorrect is not, in fact, "inventing minutiae to quibble over." Your comments about "Conventional wisdom" would be valid, if you hadn't been stating what you were saying as a matter of fact. As the belief that we cannot exceed the speed of sound was not, in fact, generally accepted as true (as it was a well known fact at that time that this phenomona was observed in nature and it was well known why our planes kept breaking apart upon reaching the sound barrier.), it is then not accepted as conventional wisdom by its very definition. Your welcome, it still remains irrelivent.For the record, your example of "comon wisdom" is argumentum ad ignorantiam (an argument to ignorance). Your understanding.If I ended my post with "The Earth revolves around the Sun" unless you subscribe to a geocentric belief (or other opposing belief) then you would agree with me. Well, then whats the problem?Its irrelivent, thats the problem.Its a red herring.

Sorry for the wait on my reply.. Gladly.. Yes and no.. Here is where I have to speculate without knowing how the collapse happened in the first place. In most "collapse of a civilization" scenarios, there are still a sizeable amount of people. So, for the most part, I assume there are a lot of people strictlyt on an average basis. To clarify, I do believe a global collapse of civilization IS possible, just not probible or easy to accomplish. I'm trying to address both the initial fall and the end scenario a thousand years later (how long has it been sense the discovery of electricity?) I agree, and I have never said otherwise. In contrast, lets look at contemporary books and compair them to ancient written texts. Before the printing press, books were hand written and few in number accordingly. How many math texts do you suppose all of Rome had back before their fall? Now how many math books are in your city alone?Speaking from personal experience, I can, within walking distance of my house alone, find hundreds of math books easily. The issue I'm raising isnt one of IF the knowledge is there, but one of how easy it is to find. I hate to bring it up again, but that heavily depends on the question of how the civilization fell in the first place. Quick answer.. No, not at all.Once again, my time is up, or I would elaborate more. Until next time..