We all seem to take for granted that guns will certainly exist after our civilization's decline.
Do we assume that drones will not exist?
Nobody said the end-times were going to fry all electronics.
Your roving bands of heavily armed Road Warrior extras can die to RC helicopters and road-side smart bombs.
Scarce as electronic components might be, they are still cheaper than human lives.
Superior logistics win in the end.

Look at this fucker:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/07/08/485262777/for-the-first-time-police-used-a-bomb-robot-to-kill
All these good guys with guns standing around and nobody could put a bullet in the guy. So they killed him with a robot. Every PD in the US is buying these things. This is our future. You can't imagine these things existing in the post-apocalyptic future? You can't imagine the kinds of creative solutions such an environment might encourage?

Quote from: Cave Bear;1010630Spinning off from another thread.


We tend to assume that survivors of our civilization's collapse will be more primitive than ourselves. We assume that they will devolve into marauding, tribalistic cargo-cultists sustained only by what they can salvage from our ruins. We assume that as a given.

What if we are wrong?

What if the tribal peoples of the post-apocalyptic future are smarter than us? What if the survival pressures of their environment drive innovation and creativity such that their own scientific and technological progress surpasses us?



Let's imagine post-apocalyptic civilizations that put our own civilization to shame.

I need to understand exactly what claim you're making here:

A. "Post-apocalyptic societies could quickly or eventually rebuild into a much higher-tech utopia that would also be more just or whatever"

or

B. "Post-apocalyptic societies would be more primitive but they would therefore be more noble and better than we are today because we're so EVULLLL"

?


In any case, the first answer is probably wrong, in the sense of being highly unlikely.

The second is just moronic. Primitive societies are not better or more moral than advanced societies, they are almost always more savage and brutal, and even when they're not they're still inferior in every respect when it comes to what's actually good for humanity.

Quote from: Cave Bear;1010630Spinning off from another thread.


We tend to assume that survivors of our civilization's collapse will be more primitive than ourselves. We assume that they will devolve into marauding, tribalistic cargo-cultists sustained only by what they can salvage from our ruins. We assume that as a given.

What if we are wrong?

What if the tribal peoples of the post-apocalyptic future are smarter than us? What if the survival pressures of their environment drive innovation and creativity such that their own scientific and technological progress surpasses us?




Let's imagine post-apocalyptic civilizations that put our own civilization to shame.

Well, there's the Second law of Thermodynamics and Occam's Razor, etc. against this argument. Simplicity and disorder are the natural states of the universe.  It takes stringent and specific conditions for complexity (order) to develop.  The more complex a system becomes, the more stringent and thus fragile its conditions for existence.  Is it possible that some apocalypse could create the specific conditions for a leap in complexity? Well, its possible, but it is very unlikely.

If humanity survived the catastrophe then there is the possibility that our collective knowledge would survive as well, and we could... eventually, possibly, build from there, but there would almost certainly be a long period of simplification (social, technological, economic).  Our technology requires extreme specializations and interconnections that would certainly break down in the face of mass disaster and die off.  For a long time (in historical terms), people would have to simplify and generalize just to survive.  In the loooong term, it's more difficult to predict. New societies and technologies could arise... but that's no longer really post-apocalyptic, is it?

Quote from: RPGPundit;1011671I need to understand exactly what claim you're making here:

A. "Post-apocalyptic societies could quickly or eventually rebuild into a much higher-tech utopia that would also be more just or whatever"

In any case, the first answer is probably wrong, in the sense of being highly unlikely.

Why? Rome declined, and it seemed like the end of the world.

Quote from: Madprofessor;1011676Well, there's the Second law of Thermodynamics and Occam's Razor, etc. against this argument. Simplicity and disorder are the natural states of the universe.  It takes stringent and specific conditions for complexity (order) to develop.  The more complex a system becomes, the more stringent and thus fragile its conditions for existence.  Is it possible that some apocalypse could create the specific conditions for a leap in complexity? Well, its possible, but it is very unlikely.

If humanity survived the catastrophe then there is the possibility that our collective knowledge would survive as well, and we could... eventually, possibly, build from there, but there would almost certainly be a long period of simplification (social, technological, economic).  Our technology requires extreme specializations and interconnections that would certainly break down in the face of mass disaster and die off.  For a long time (in historical terms), people would have to simplify and generalize just to survive.  In the loooong term, it's more difficult to predict. New societies and technologies could arise... but that's no longer really post-apocalyptic, is it?

What I'm saying here is that people will not let go of their technologies if they can help it, but that the pressures of a rapid decline would force us to adapt our technologies to a resource-scarce environment. There will be trade-offs in the short term, but the end result is that technology advances towards rugged efficiency and self-sufficiency. These are branches of technological progress; technological progress is not linear!

I'm also saying that, given time, civilization now strengthened by adversity may recover and eventually surpass us.

Quote from: Cave Bear;1011734Why? Rome declined, and it seemed like the end of the world.

It was the end of the world for many, and there wasn't exactly a spike in technology in the centuries that followed.  Of course, medieval technology did eventually surpass many of the technologies of ancient Rome, but by then Europe was no longer post-apocalyptic.

Quote from: Madprofessor;1011740It was the end of the world for many, and there wasn't exactly a spike in technology in the centuries that followed.  Of course, medieval technology did eventually surpass many of the technologies of ancient Rome, but by then Europe was no longer post-apocalyptic.

What's the difference between a post-apocalyptic society and a non-post-apocalyptic society? What is the precise cutoff point?

Also note that I never said anything about a sudden spike.

Quote from: Cave Bear;1011735What I'm saying here is that people will not let go of their technologies if they can help it, but that the pressures of a rapid decline would force us to adapt our technologies to a resource-scarce environment. There will be trade-offs in the short term, but the end result is that technology advances towards rugged efficiency and self-sufficiency. These are branches of technological progress; technological progress is not linear!

I'm also saying that, given time, civilization now strengthened by adversity may recover and eventually surpass us.

Right, technological development is not linear.  The steam engine was invented several times, but it was not really adapted to practical application until there was a fuel (wood) shortage in England where there happened to be lots of wet coal.  A chemical battery was developed in Mesopotamia sometime between 250 BC and 250 AD, but that technology didn't survive because it didn't have practical application.

The high tech of today requires the specializations and connectivity of modern society to function, flourish, and even be useful. People who survive by hunting, gathering and subsistence agriculture quit bothering with cell-phones and their non-existent networks and internet pretty quickly, and drones will only function until their batteries die.  I might be able to reload shells and even create small amounts of gunpowder to keep a gun functioning for some time, but go ahead and build me a lithium battery from spare bits so you can fly your drone while we are starving. A person in survival mode will not waste too many calories on maintaining technologies that are no longer suited to the environment.

And yes, a new civilization that rises from the old may eventually surpass us, but that is no longer a post-apocalyptic setting, is it?

'Apocalyptic' might have been too hyperbolic (but then this is the RPG Site, where we talk about the 'Swine' ruining roleplaying games with their Marxist politics and shit).

I'm saying that if our global civilization enters a period of rapid decline then:
1. We aren't necessarily going to lose all of our technology
2. We aren't necessarily going to be ruled by roving motorcycle bands in scavanged bondage-gear
3. Indeed, any groups that do manage to hang on to energy sources (solar cells, windmills, etc.), some means of growing food (such as aquaponic systems), and automation (including drones) is going to have a huge advantage over marauders. For one thing, they will have the logistical support to maintain security forces.
4. People won't stop innovating, though technogical advancement will probably advance in a different direction.
5. There won't be a sudden spike in technological advancement, but new pressures in the environment will shake up the status quo and force creative new solutions. If these new solutions continue to accumulate, then any civilizations that arise in a post-apocalyptic context can eventually surpass our own civilization.

Quote from: Cave Bear;1011742What's the difference between a post-apocalyptic society and a non-post-apocalyptic society? What is the precise cutoff point?

Good question, and perhaps why I am having a hard time seeing your argument.  I assume that a post-apocalyptic society is one that is in chaos, and decline.  The boundary must be fuzy, but once it begins recovery into something new then it is no-longer post-apocalyptic.

QuoteAlso note that I never said anything about a sudden spike.

True, but you did suggest that a society in post-apocalyptic state could develop technology that surpassed that of pre-collapse. If our society collapsed, say due to a nuclear war, the tech in our post-apocalyptic phase is going to go to shit fast.  The decline in our society will be much sharper than it was for Rome because our society is that much more complex.

Another problem is that we seem to be assuming that nuclear war will be the most likely cause of our civilization's decline.
Epidemics, ecological collapse, and declining birth rate can do the job too.

Quote from: Cave Bear;1011753'Apocalyptic' might have been too hyperbolic (but then this is the RPG Site, where we talk about the 'Swine' ruining roleplaying games with their Marxist politics and shit).

I'm saying that if our global civilization enters a period of rapid decline then:
1. We aren't necessarily going to lose all of our technology
2. We aren't necessarily going to be ruled by roving motorcycle bands in scavanged bondage-gear
3. Indeed, any groups that do manage to hang on to energy sources (solar cells, windmills, etc.), some means of growing food (such as aquaponic systems), and automation (including drones) is going to have a huge advantage over marauders. For one thing, they will have the logistical support to maintain security forces.
4. People won't stop innovating, though technogical advancement will probably advance in a different direction.
5. There won't be a sudden spike in technological advancement, but new pressures in the environment will shake up the status quo and force creative new solutions. If these new solutions continue to accumulate, then any civilizations that arise in a post-apocalyptic context can eventually surpass our own civilization.

OK, good points.  I'll modify with:
1. Of course we won't lose all technology, but we will simplify to suit our new environment.
2. Of course not, that's ridiculous Hollywood stuff.  Though there likely would be a brief period of chaos, violence, and competition for resources.
3. The groups that might hang on to these technologies would be the ones that quickly mastered the more rudimentary technologies that allowed for survival and specialization in their environment.  If they had surplus food, shelter, security, etc. first, then they might be able to dedicate some effort to preserving, recapturing or adapting old and not immediately useful tech.
4. Agreed, people won't stop innovating, but the direction of development will be geared towards predictable ends: food, water, shelter, security, etc. until it develops to the point where it starts creating new social and power structures and dominating others and the environment - and then, it's not really post-apocalyptic anymore.
5. Yes, new civilizations might arise from the old, and I will add that they would do so from a different starting point then our own early civs because they have some of the artifacts and knowledge of our civilization to build from.  However, there is no guarantee that any such civilizations will survive, thrive, or surpass our own in any way.  Humanity could fade out, or exist as hunter/gatherers for ages, possibly punctuated by brief "civilizations" or not.  We assume that because we would keep innovating that that would eventually lead to a new civilization, but the conditions may not allow for a new civ to rise at all.

Quote from: Cave Bear;1011756Another problem is that we seem to be assuming that nuclear war will be the most likely cause of our civilization's decline.
Epidemics, ecological collapse, and declining birth rate can do the job too.

Barbarians of the Apocalypse has a great random apocalypse generator!

On the lines of my previous comments, the complexity of our society makes us more fragile and therefore vulnerable to collapse from multiple directions because everything is interconnected and interdependent.   Simpler societies are more resilient.

Quote from: Cave Bear;1011734Why? Rome declined, and it seemed like the end of the world.

It does seem to me the fall of the Western Roman Empire was definitely an apocalypse, and that people did eventually surpass Rome - about 1500 years later.

Quote from: Madprofessor;1011762On the lines of my previous comments, the complexity of our society makes us more fragile and therefore vulnerable to collapse from multiple directions because everything is interconnected and interdependent.   Simpler societies are more resilient.

I don't think there's any evidence of that. If anything, step-change collapses seem to have become less common as societies have grown larger and more complex. The collapse of the USSR resulted in a limited step-change collapse in its territories but the collapse of relatively primitive modern State societies into Stateless (eg Somalia) seems like a bigger change to me. Easter Island type collapses seem to have once been fairly common. It's an open question whether something like the fall of the Western Roman Empire resulting in a civilisational collapse could happen now.