Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RedKing]

Then what's agriculture? A fluke?

A more effective way to exploit resources (particularly manpower). Tribe gets too big, becomes hard to obtain enough food via hunting and gathering. Agriculture is inefficient with small groups, not only because of the labor-intensive nature of farming, but the infrastructure required to exploit it effectively (granaries, mills, irrigation, etc.)

Once you got a lot of people, you can pull that shit off (which in turn leads to specialization of labor as you get people who specialize in building things, others that specialize in recording and keeping track of things, etc.)

[FearfulJesuit]

It's also well-recorded that many hunter-gatherer tribes- those living on arable land- are perfectly aware of the possibility of crops, but disdain it. The loss of freedom is intolerable.

[Mr. Palau]

It's also well-recorded that many hunter-gatherer tribes- those living on arable land- are perfectly aware of the possibility of crops, but disdain it. The loss of freedom is intolerable.

That is today, after they have encountered agricultural peoples. You can not infer whether ancient hunter-gatherers were aware of the possibility of crops, or whether they disdained it.

[Helgoland]

Agriculture was the beginning of social stratification and inequality.

So we can see who had an interest...
But food security becoming a problem? The entire idea of agriculture is having a more secure source of food - if you catch no game, you're gone in two or three weeks; if you're growing your own food, you can stay in one place set up a stockpile to get over the shortages.

It's also well-recorded that many hunter-gatherer tribes- those living on arable land- are perfectly aware of the possibility of crops, but disdain it. The loss of freedom is intolerable.

That could very well be a cultural thing, especially considering that if they stayed hunter-gatherers for so long they're bound to have developed some prejudices against agriculture.

[Neonivek]

It is hard to escape inventions to kill something.

Afterall what is agriculture but killing plants?

[Loud Whispers]

Conclusion of derail:
Humanity has a habit of putting people who like exploiting people into positions of power over people.
Resulting in exploitation.

Anything about the science? Please?

[Teneb]

Conclusion of derail:
Humanity has a habit of putting people who like exploiting people into positions of power over people.
Resulting in exploitation.

Hopefuly you won't mind if I sig that.

[Darvi]

Conclusion of derail:
Humanity has a habit of putting people who like exploiting people into positions of power over people.
Resulting in exploitation.

Anything about the science? Please?

Might be related to the Peter Principle.

[Helgoland]

You didn't say what kind of science. Social science time!

How would a meritocratic system have to be designed to avoid the Peter principle?

[Darvi]

I derped there and mixed up the Peter Principle with the Dilbert Principle (which a meritocratic system would, for the most part, would manage to avoid since meritocrats usually have a clue about what they're talking about).

[10ebbor10]

Agriculture was the beginning of social stratification and inequality.

So we can see who had an interest...
But food security becoming a problem? The entire idea of agriculture is having a more secure source of food - if you catch no game, you're gone in two or three weeks; if you're growing your own food, you can stay in one place set up a stockpile to get over the shortages..

You become dependent on one source of food, while hunter gatherers depend on several (Berries, catch, whatever edible stuff they find). Hunter gatherers can also move if they want to. It's higly unlikely that they'll find nothing for several weeks.

Secondly, agriculture is often a monoculture, or at a very select amount of plants. If a harvest fails (due to floods, pests, whatever) then you're not going to have enough food to the last to the next one. Sure, you can make a stockpile, but pests will make short work of it and besides, you need that for sowing the new plants.

The entire idea of agriculture was more food from less ground. It's like putting all your (ostrich) eggs in one basket, instead of regular eggs in multiple baskets.

[Mageziya]

One problem I see with this: Communication.

Sure, you can travel multiple light-years in a day, but communications are still bound by light.

Once you reach a certain point, communication with earth is impractical. To actually test this thing out full scale, we would need to send people on a potential suicide mission, and we would never actually know what happens if they don't return. Even after everything is found to be working, all long distance missions would still be total isolation.

And even when space travel, colonies, and whatnot are established, if we don't revolutionize communications, this would still be a big problem.

Here are what I think what some possible solutions are for the communications problems:

• Sending messenger ships back and forth, carrying information between locations. Sort of like how we had runners in the past to relay information, but in spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaace.
• Setting up relay satellites that warp space to send messages. Essentially, applying what the Drive does for messages.
• Discovering another quirk in physics.

That's all I can really think about in terms of solutions.

[Teneb]

• Sending messenger ships back and forth, carrying information between locations. Sort of like how we had runners in the past to relay information, but in spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaace.

My guess is that we will have to rely on this at first.

[Helgoland]

Why not have the distortions themselves as the carriers of signals? Smoke signals, but

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

IN SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACEEEEEEEE

[Helgoland]

What about vaporisers?

Those would also make a good anti-laser measure, but suck (despite the name) as an offensive weapon.