What I mean is that in the case of some sort of apocalyptic event which wipes most if not all of human civilization out, would it be impossible for mankind to industrialize once again? I was wondering since it seems like a somewhat common belief that we no longer have sufficient surface non-renewables for such a matter, so I figured I'd ask here considering I cannot find other sources.
>>16927418A lot of the baseline knowledge would likely never go away because it's relatively common knowledge today (electricity generation, basic metallurgy, biodiesel, etc.). From there it's increasingly efficient methods of boiling water. Coal is still abundant. And we have knowledge of alternatives that, while more expensive, would allow us to start drilling for crude once more and get back on track.Assuming the remaining people include a fair number of skilled craftsmen and learned people, I'd estimate we'd be around the 1930's technologically within a generation or two.
>>16927418Hypothetically if oil and gas wasn't available during the time of the industrial revolution they could have done the same stuff, just slightly worse and less efficiently with other fuels that are more renewable like burning wood. It would have been a "worse" industrial revolution in terms of output but would have still been way better than everything being done by individual artisans and would have still had the massive effect on society and economies. Wood is actually not terribly less efficient than coal. Coal is better, of course, but not by a huge margin. For devices that require higher energy output they can use animal oils, although only if the scale isn't too large because it's more difficult to get large volumes.
Thered be so much scrap metal it wouldnt matter. Easier than mining. Even in a social collapse, the raw materials dont disappear. I doubt there will ever be a total civilization collapse. WW2 was bad but did not destroy civilization. 8 billion humans and widely spread technology = civilization never collapses. Given modern technology future wars are shorter with less casualties. General trend is less major armed conflict. Nukie boyz are countered by DEWs. Nobody wants to use nukie boyz anyway.Aging population demographically also reduces likelihood of warfare.
>>16927418>some sort of apocalyptic eventwhat event?space is fake (no asteroids/solar flares)viruses don't existnukes don't existAI terminators don't exist
>>16927418glow niggers have enough power to deny it for now. its the reason theres a ton of anti ai propaganda.
I feel like even if there aren't the cheap fossil fuels available to make industrialization immediately profitable from the start, white people would eventually rediscover the value of electronics and then you'd have something to bootstrap the process as demands for electricity and manufacturing escalate, making more expensive alternative fuels financially viable
Wood burning trains existed prior to the mass production of coal.
>>16927484ya but humans have destroyed the forests so the next human civilization will never know what a tree is
>>16927490Go outside and touch some grass bro. There are still fucktons of trees. Especially if humanity got nearly wiped out and they weren't getting harvested anymore, the population would also start increasing
Its not impossible you just have to develop tech that is superior by every metric but with it being green as the default.>Exactly 1 week to pay me before I sell everything.
>>16927432>Wood is actually not terribly less efficient than coalWood is terribly less efficient than coal because to feed an industrializing nation you need one good coal mine, to do the same with forests you need a continent of plantations.
>entire universe made out of energy>nobody can figure out how to extract free energy from itwtf
>>16927598just boil water my nigga
Since all the coal turns into CO2 and it gets captured by plants and turn to wood, its all renewable. About two tons of carbon per square meter, similar to the density of a dense forest of tall trees.
>>16927594Figured that out mostly.Graphene perovskite solar->haber bosch->methane->graphene (theres a direct methane to graphene process). One solar plant could produce enough graphene to build more panels. Thats probably going to be mainstream technology in 5 years maximum. Graphene improves computer chips and batteries. Graphene and carbon fiber also optimal strength weight for mechanical parts. Someone will eventually figure out how to do low cost graphene sheets and you can just build everything mechanical from those. That also solves atmospheric carbon. If you had to build a bajillion robots youd eventually find the highest performance materials from one of the most abundant elements.
>>16927598There is no free lunch, retard. The law of the market is universal and supreme.
>>16927598>entire universe made out of energyNo, there is only energy where mass is moving through space over time and we have been pretty good at capturing a bunch of that energy with water wheels and turbines.
>>16928070>There is no free lunch>is universalSo how much did the universe have to pay for its lunch?
>>16928094Everything it ever was and will be.
>>16928102So the universe doesn't exist anymore because it had to give up everything about itself in order to exist indefinitely?
>>16927418>we no longer have sufficient surface non-renewablesThe Industrial Revolution was kick started by steam engines and shit, so if you run out of ocean and other surface water, you will have a lot more problems than just trying to recreate the past.
>>16927418No, but it depends a lot on what you meant by "wipes most if not all of human civilizations". If you just mean a reset where 90% of the civilization died from disease, then like >>16927427 already mentioned, we'd recuperate relatively quickly, and I'd argue even quicker, probably 80-90s tech in 50 years except computers. The big hurdle would be microchips.If what you mean is a complete reset with no infrastructure or ruins left behind to reverse-engineer, then it would take way longer, but by no means impossible.
>>16927598>entire planet is made out of rocks>nobody can figure out how to extract free rocks from it without having to put in work to pick them up
>>16928145Rocks literally fall from the sky constantly, your roof and gutters are filled with them, you simply have to put a basket outside and it will start collecting rocks.
>>16928145>pull rock out of the ground>there's now a rock shaped hole in the rock sphere>all rocks making up the planet shift to a lower energy state resulting in apocalyptic earthquakes around the globeyou could have prevented this
>>16927418I mean any apocalyptic event that could completely destroy human infrastructure and wipe all our accumulated knowledge would also wipe out humanity, and probably the entire biosphere. As a baseline a recoverable apocalypse still means restarting from an unbelievable high point of machines, tool usage, and knowledge. I don't think future civs would just skip steam, they could probably skip straight to like the 1950's and early computerization, and at that point it wouldn't be that hard to just run on expensive coal or whatever for a while until you get other sources of power online, and at that point apart from maybe relegating mass consumer use of plastics to the dustbin of history, they could recreate everything else just fine.I just don't think return to stone age apocalyses are very realistic anymore, modern civilziation is so built in and resiliant due to muh globalization that destroying human civilziation is tantamount to scouring the planet of life.
>>16928157>any apocalyptic event that could completely destroy human infrastructure and wipe all our accumulated knowledgeit's called white genocide and it's currently happening
>>16928110Yeah pretty much. Any questions?
>>16928217Sad *crying emoji*
>>16927418I wouldn't say impossible, but it will be much much slower due to fewer resources/harder extraction, especially fuel like oil and coal. Honestly, I'm not sure if that's not a bad thing either. Outside of disasters, for most of human history it would have taken a lifetime to make any significant change to an industry/society, but now the entire world can be upended in a matter of years. This breakneck speed leaves many people struggling to keep up and would also mean higher risks.
renewable energy exists so, who cares. Just keep the population small enough and there wont be scarcity. Or do the human thing of just fighting for these resources, like land around the hydro spots, and keep the losers in poverty.
>>16927490This is a boomer meme. Forestry is sustainable
i think you're right about this, yeah
>>16927490you're a fucking retardt. forest ranger
>>16927450>anti ai propagandaThe most retarded phrase I've heard. The glows are the ones pushing AI slop, they want you dumb and dependent.
