A Day Without Science
A Day Without Science
Sometimes I end up in the weirdest conversations with people, where I suddenly feel like I've just awakened in a world of aliens, like I've stepped across into the Mirror Universe and everyone has a goatee except me. Excepting massively reductionist definitions of science, none of you would have a problem living without science for a day, would you? I mean, even if you take it right down to just surviving a day like a dog, with no clothes, no tools, no learned culture, just instincts. You could get by easily for a day, couldn't you? I know I could, and I'd find it pretty engaging to do so, come to think of it.
I wish I looked better naked; if I had a bigger dick and a smaller belly, I'd do this and make a documentary out of it: how many days can I live without science. Damn, people are decadent.
I wish I looked better naked; if I had a bigger dick and a smaller belly, I'd do this and make a documentary out of it: how many days can I live without science. Damn, people are decadent.
- AtemHutlrt
- Bulldrekker
- Posts: 327
- Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 11:27 pm
- Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan
What really blows my mind isn't that so many people are not confident they could survive under difficult circumstances, it's that most of them are perfectly fine with it. My mother uses OnStar to guide her two miles to the grocery store, and she loves it. I've asked her before what she'd do if she were lost in the forest, without even a map, and she says, "well, I'd just die." Seriously? How can you realize that, and not be driven absolutely crazy by it? I'm not saying I have the greatest survival skills, but it's something I actively work on because, in this, like in all areas, I cannot tolerate having major, life-endangering weaknesses. I really don't understand how people just wallow in their insufficiencies.
The sun shines in my bedroom
when you play;
and the rain it always starts
when you go away
when you play;
and the rain it always starts
when you go away
- Jeff Hauze
- Wuffle Trainer
- Posts: 1415
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 10:31 pm
They probably don't think of it as wallowing.AtemHutlrt wrote:I really don't understand how people just wallow in their insufficiencies.
Now setting aside the absurdity of "Could I survive a day?" I'm guessing that folks were answering more of "Would I want to survive a day?" I don't see anything overly wallowful about saying "No, I'd rather not."
Screw liquid diamond. I want to be able to fling apartment building sized ingots of extracted metal into space.
- Serious Paul
- Devil
- Posts: 6644
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:38 pm
-
- Wuffle Trainer
- Posts: 1537
- Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 5:33 pm
- Location: Hawai'i
- Contact:
- Jeff Hauze
- Wuffle Trainer
- Posts: 1415
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 10:31 pm
And I only said a preference. What's your point?3278 wrote:IT'S ONLY A DAY!
Saying you couldn't survive a day (provided you don't live in severe environs) is silly, which I already noted. So let's set that aside for a moment. Saying your personal preference is just that, and nothing more. You dig the outdoors, I really don't. What about that makes it wallowful or deserving of the scorn you seem to hold?
We can go to plenty of extremes, and talking about the silly things that people will complain about, like not getting their morning Starbucks or whatever. People are going to complain, always have, always will, whether its about Starbucks or that annoying plague spread by bugs killing everybody in Europe. That's not at the core of what you're talking about here. Once you set aside the silly part of the discussion (I couldn't live a day!), you're left with personal preference. You've clearly made yourself into a person who is rather self-reliant, and comfortable with being removed from the creature comforts for varying lengths of time. Bob over there loves cooking in his modern kitchen and happens to dig building cabinetry in his garage. So without the silly "Can you survive a day?" question, you're left with "How would you manage during a day without science? Would you like it? Would you handle it poorly or well?"
I'd imagine your answer would be something along the lines of "I'd find plenty in nature to entertain and interest me, and I could handle myself pretty well for a 24 hour period." Bob would probably say "I survived, but I'm chilly, would like a shower, didn't really find enough food, miss the smell of cooking coq au vin, and I really just wanted to work on my cabinetry today." OH THE HORROR! THE SCORN THAT BOB DESERVES! LOOK AT THAT PUSSY!
No thanks. I'm okay with saying "Whatever floats your boat, dude." I have to admit, I'm a little surprised that you aren't.
Screw liquid diamond. I want to be able to fling apartment building sized ingots of extracted metal into space.
- Serious Paul
- Devil
- Posts: 6644
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:38 pm
My own interpretation was as reductionist as possible: no benefits of learning, basically. No tools. Animal intelligence, essentially. The very beginnings of culture, of language. Even at that level, uh, bazillions of organisms do it all the time. In fact, for the last 4-ish billion years, until maybe 100,000 years ago, every single ancestor you had - 4 billion years worth of lifespans! - lived without science at least long enough to get laid. That's a pretty good pedigree. If we can't get by for 24 hours, if we can't get by forever, without that technological edge, we've got to ask ourselves what we've lost along with what we've gained. Okay, I like what we've gained, and I wouldn't go back, but if I can just be capable of both, I'd feel pretty good.WillyGilligan wrote:How much are we considering 'science'. Would you be allowed to use a wheel, or fire?
Maybe I'm misinterpreting, "I'd rather not" "survive a day." Like, that someone would prefer to die rather than spend a day in such conditions; if you were saying someone just would prefer not to spend a day in such conditions, yeah, me neither.Jeff wrote:And I only said a preference. What's your point?
Both: Connections, both the first episode of the first series, and the first chapter of its companion volume; both should be required reading for all human beings. I'm sure there are other ones, too, but I talk about Connections a lot, so I'm guessing that's what you're thinking of.Serious Paul wrote:Wasn't there a show or a book that examined what happens a society breaks down? And how close large metropolitan areas really are to being savage places?
- Jeff Hauze
- Wuffle Trainer
- Posts: 1415
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 10:31 pm
Would I rather die than spend a day in such conditions? Not especially, unless I'm a few decades older. I'm more commenting on "I'd rather not spend a day in such conditions."3278 wrote:Maybe I'm misinterpreting, "I'd rather not" "survive a day." Like, that someone would prefer to die rather than spend a day in such conditions; if you were saying someone just would prefer not to spend a day in such conditions, yeah, me neither.
Would I rather die than spend a substantial amount of time (more than a few weeks, we'll say) in such conditions? You betcha. That's my preference, because I'd rather avoid what I think of as my own personal version of hell. Giving up the skills required to survive when such an environment was a necessity for say...books? Sounds like a fair trade off to me.
Screw liquid diamond. I want to be able to fling apartment building sized ingots of extracted metal into space.
Except you don't. We're not hardwired with too many instincts, and we learn most of what we know from our parents and whatever social structure we are born into. It's part of being in that whole primate category. And there's just too much to know out there, too much that can kill you dead if you don't know, for a human to survive without the benefit of learning behaviors and teaching.3278 wrote:My own interpretation was as reductionist as possible: no benefits of learning, basically. No tools. Animal intelligence, essentially. The very beginnings of culture, of language. Even at that level, uh, bazillions of organisms do it all the time. In fact, for the last 4-ish billion years, until maybe 100,000 years ago, every single ancestor you had - 4 billion years worth of lifespans! - lived without science at least long enough to get laid. That's a pretty good pedigree. If we can't get by for 24 hours, if we can't get by forever, without that technological edge, we've got to ask ourselves what we've lost along with what we've gained. Okay, I like what we've gained, and I wouldn't go back, but if I can just be capable of both, I'd feel pretty good.WillyGilligan wrote:How much are we considering 'science'. Would you be allowed to use a wheel, or fire?
Look at us: we don't have fur, we don't have super smell or super hearing(we DO have pretty effin' good sight, all things considered), we arn't particularly fast or strong, we don't have natural weapons. What we do have is the ability to learn and perform more abstract thinking than our competitors. That's our thing, our shtick. Take that away from us, and we're food for the REAL Animals.
So yeah, if we're talking about running around nekkid in the woods, scratching out grubs with our fingernails and unaware of things like fire? Yeah, i'll fucking pass. It's not too bad to "rough it" now and again, but I'm not trying to act like a fuckin' animal for a day.
And, I don't think it's really a fair thought experiment unless our environment is going to be one that wasn't made by science. And if you think I'm gonna run around the Serengetti or the Tiaga wearing nothing but my birthday suit? You're loony.
I suspect that people who speak or write properly are up to no good, or homersexual, or both
Ratlaw had a really interesting take on the question, which was what if everything science had provided for us just disappeared for a day. I got to thinking about what kind of RPG that would make, but it also occurs to me that this is the essence of any sort of "shipwreck" story: to lose everything civilization grants. It's quite something to think of that happening to the whole world, though. Even in the worst zombie apocalypse, we assume there will be some cans of food lying around, or a shotgun, or a car. What if you had nothing?
- AtemHutlrt
- Bulldrekker
- Posts: 327
- Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 11:27 pm
- Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan
I think people are way overstating how difficult this would be. Let's say you're near fresh, flowing water [without fresh water, things get exponentially more complicated]; what would your day be like? Well, assuming weather isn't a major issue, you'd sit around, look at a few squirrels, maybe catch and eat a crayfish or two, and, well, just be in the woods, basically. Your level of boredom would vary depending on how entertaining you find squirrels. Is this something that people actually think is difficult? I'm trying hard not to sound condescending here, but I've had days pretty much exactly like this, and I'm not some epic outdoorsman.
The sun shines in my bedroom
when you play;
and the rain it always starts
when you go away
when you play;
and the rain it always starts
when you go away
That is a considerably different thing. I mean, I can be deprived, physically, of technological devices, but you can't take my knowledge of how those things work, or how to replicate them away. I can create shelter, good shelter, in most environments because I learned how to, thanks to technology.3278 wrote:Ratlaw had a really interesting take on the question, which was what if everything science had provided for us just disappeared for a day. I got to thinking about what kind of RPG that would make, but it also occurs to me that this is the essence of any sort of "shipwreck" story: to lose everything civilization grants. It's quite something to think of that happening to the whole world, though. Even in the worst zombie apocalypse, we assume there will be some cans of food lying around, or a shotgun, or a car. What if you had nothing?
I suspect that people who speak or write properly are up to no good, or homersexual, or both
- paladin2019
- Bulldrek Pimp
- Posts: 824
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 10:24 am
- Location: Undisclosed locations in Southwest Asia
- Jeff Hauze
- Wuffle Trainer
- Posts: 1415
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 10:31 pm
Nope. It just sounds like a rather horrid waste of a day for me. Then again, I'm an odd bird. I don't much care for cities, live in a rural area, but mostly avoid the outdoors. I like the outdoors because it means there are less people around me. That's it. The rest of it pretty much bores me to tears. There's a lot of things I can respect that bore me to tears. Why yes, I do get cake and eat it as well.AtemHutlrt wrote:Is this something that people actually think is difficult?
Screw liquid diamond. I want to be able to fling apartment building sized ingots of extracted metal into space.
That's an excellent question. I think the implication of the original question is that we'd be living in our cities, it's just everything post-Iron-Age would disappear or be somehow unusable. If we were all transported back to the Iron Age, though, we'd be in their cities. [And technology would be the least of our problems: the sharp swords and questions we can't understand would probably be a bigger issue, although there are seven billion people worldwide now, and about 14 people worldwide then.]