why did the stone age last so long?

[PsychoSarah]

What's the problem? Technological advance is inherently iterative, and requires a significant base population to occur. Add to this that technology generally only progresses when their are significantly favourable conditions (i.e. better than subsistence level resources, long term security) it makes perfect sense to me. Technological advance follows the exponential of population growth pretty closely, as you'd expect.

Technological advancements also are spurred on by war.

 

[Armoured]

Technological advancements also are spurred on by war.

Warfare is a motivator, but needs to be seen as part of the larger whole. Indeed, you can have many delightfully inconclusive and nonproductive hours discussing whether war is an emergent property of technology, or vice versa, and whether or not war is an inherent function of population growth. Oh to be an honours student again...

 

[PsychoSarah]

Warfare is a motivator, but needs to be seen as part of the larger whole. Indeed, you can have many delightfully inconclusive and nonproductive hours discussing whether war is an emergent property of technology, or vice versa, and whether or not war is an inherent function of population growth. Oh to be an honours student again...

I view war as an unfortunate adaptation humans had to eliminate the other bipedal competition we had for resources. Unfortunately, that stopped really being an advantage quite some time ago.

 

[juvenissun]

It's a J curve, which will inevitably cause issues population wise. That doesn't translate as being an issue with technology though, in fact we should be happy it is like that since we live at a point where the curve is becoming near vertical as far as technology goes.

This type of curve only exists in theory. But now we see it as a fact. It is scary.

 

[PsychoSarah]

This type of curve only exists in theory. But now we see it as a fact. It is scary.

I suppose so, but the solutions to it aren't exactly great. One would either have to limit how many children people have, or how old people can be allowed to get, or both. Either way most people, religious or not, would have issues with that, but ultimately without population controls we will reach the inevitable point at which our population will exceed the environment's ability to support it, resulting in a massive die off that would lead to ruin.

 

[juvenissun]

What's the problem? Technological advance is inherently iterative, and requires a significant base population to occur. Add to this that technology generally only progresses when their are significantly favourable conditions (i.e. better than subsistence level resources, long term security) it makes perfect sense to me. Technological advance follows the exponential of population growth pretty closely, as you'd expect.

You see the feature, you know the reason. I do too.

But you are a Christian, and you still do not see the problem. Do you know what does a "clue" mean?

 

[juvenissun]

I suppose so, but the solutions to it aren't exactly great. One would either have to limit how many children people have, or how old people can be allowed to get, or both. Either way most people, religious or not, would have issues with that, but ultimately without population controls we will reach the inevitable point at which our population will exceed the environment's ability to support it, resulting in a massive die off that would lead to ruin.

Yes, you are thinking about how would the curve do from where it is now. Very very good.

It can not go straight up as it was. Only two things could happen: One to to level off, and another one is to collapse. Based on your analysis, which one is more likely?

Of course we do not know. But the shape of the curve should give a strong hint by itself. Do you know the Bible has clear prophecies on exactly this feature?

 

[lasthero]

Juve, could you please stop acting like a smug know-it-all? It makes me throw up in my mouth.

Thanks.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yes, you are thinking about how would the curve do from where it is now. Very very good.

It can not go straight up as it was. Only two things could happen: One to to level off, and another one is to collapse. Based on your analysis, which one is more likely?

Of course we do not know. But the shape of the curve should give a strong hint by itself. Do you know the Bible has clear prophecies on exactly this feature?

I don't know about any prophecies about overpopulation, but there are some about famine and huge numbers of people dying from war, disease, and starvation. Which isn't particularly impressive considering that such things had happened periodically before the bible was written and afterwards.

Based on my analysis of people in general, I think that whether or not it collapses or levels off depends on how much longer it can continue and whether or not the long overdue pandemic which kills off a portion of the population kills enough to make a difference without causing complete anarchy (we are about 70 years overdue for a plague which kills at least 1% of the afflicted countries' populations, last one I can think of was the Spanish Flu around World War 1). If we can go the next century without serious global famines which wipe out millions of people in all countries, I imagine it will level off. If within a couple decades we see that kind of die off, there is going to be a serious collapse. If it happens between 50-100 years from now, I think there will be serious famines, but the overall decline will be slow rather than a sudden collapse, which might give an opportunity to put measures in place to prevent the issue in the future.

However, chances are the energy crisis is going to hit faster than famine will.

 

[biggles53]

Not perfectly so, and it was still described as a J curve when I took AP bio a couple years ago.

Sorry to be picky, but maths is my game.....a J curve describes an initial downswing, followed by an upswing which reaches greater heights than previously. Statistical noise aside, population growth has always traced an exponentially increasing growth...

Lecture over.....

 

[biggles53]

What's the problem? Technological advance is inherently iterative, and requires a significant base population to occur. Add to this that technology generally only progresses when their are significantly favourable conditions (i.e. better than subsistence level resources, long term security) it makes perfect sense to me. Technological advance follows the exponential of population growth pretty closely, as you'd expect.

 

[lesliedellow]

Because, for whatever reason, it took somebody that long to discover how to smelt copper.

We don't even know how they made that discovery, but it was probably just a lucky accident. Pretty soon their tribe got to hear about it. Then the neighbouring tribe got to hear about it.

 

[High Fidelity]

This type of curve only exists in theory. But now we see it as a fact. It is scary.

I suppose you think gravity is just a 'theory' as well, but you wouldn't jump off a building, would you?

 

[Simmeh]

What's the problem? Technological advance is inherently iterative, and requires a significant base population to occur. Add to this that technology generally only progresses when their are significantly favourable conditions (i.e. better than subsistence level resources, long term security) it makes perfect sense to me. Technological advance follows the exponential of population growth pretty closely, as you'd expect.

This pretty much sums it up. This is also why I'd say that the domestication of plants and animals was the most important technological advance in human history.

 

[AV1611VET]

why did the stone age last so long?

It didn't.

Science runs on a floating decimal that is out of control.

 

[juvenissun]

I suppose you think gravity is just a 'theory' as well, but you wouldn't jump off a building, would you?

You see the same part of the curve nearby a blackhole. I think that is theoretical enough.

Jump off a roof? It is still in the stone age part of the curve. No problem.

 

[juvenissun]

Juve, could you please stop acting like a smug know-it-all? It makes me throw up in my mouth.

Thanks.

Then don't read it. I said things I know. Not all my students like to be in my class, particularly if I said thing above their heads. If I have chance to find such a person, I will try hard to stay with him as long as I could. There are a few nice physicists and biologists in this forum. I tried to talk more with them. But, well, they don't seems like the pressure I gave them in my questions.

Do you have hard questions? Throw them to me and see how would I love them.

 

[juvenissun]

I don't know about any prophecies about overpopulation, but there are some about famine and huge numbers of people dying from war, disease, and starvation. Which isn't particularly impressive considering that such things had happened periodically before the bible was written and afterwards.

Based on my analysis of people in general, I think that whether or not it collapses or levels off depends on how much longer it can continue and whether or not the long overdue pandemic which kills off a portion of the population kills enough to make a difference without causing complete anarchy (we are about 70 years overdue for a plague which kills at least 1% of the afflicted countries' populations, last one I can think of was the Spanish Flu around World War 1). If we can go the next century without serious global famines which wipe out millions of people in all countries, I imagine it will level off. If within a couple decades we see that kind of die off, there is going to be a serious collapse. If it happens between 50-100 years from now, I think there will be serious famines, but the overall decline will be slow rather than a sudden collapse, which might give an opportunity to put measures in place to prevent the issue in the future.

However, chances are the energy crisis is going to hit faster than famine will.

There are many factors that could cause the collapse of everything we built in the past 100 years (ONLY !!!) and put us into a state of stone age (so to speak). This idea was ridiculous 100 years ago (impossible). Now it is a very real possibility.

 

[PsychoSarah]

There are many factors that could cause the collapse of everything we built in the past 100 years (ONLY !!!) and put us into a state of stone age (so to speak). This idea was ridiculous 100 years ago (impossible). Now it is a very real possibility.

I highly doubt that it will put our species back that far without it resulting in our extinction. Consider all the nuclear power plants, if their personnel dies off too much to safely shut them down they will fail and release the radiation, Europe would become a wasteland, as would much of North America.

I would say Stone Age would never happen.

 

[EternalDragon]

I suppose you think gravity is just a 'theory' as well, but you wouldn't jump off a building, would you?

How gravity works is testable, observational science without having to lose your life. You could just use a softball.