A Day Without Science

3278 · Post by **3278** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 2:55 pm

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.

AtemHutlrt · Post by **AtemHutlrt** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 3:36 pm

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.

Jeff Hauze · Post by **Jeff Hauze** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 4:49 pm

AtemHutlrt wrote:I really don't understand how people just wallow in their insufficiencies.

They probably don't think of it as wallowing.

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."

3278 · Post by **3278** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 5:41 pm

IT'S ONLY A DAY!

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 6:12 pm

Maybe this is a just a smart ass thing to say...but for many of these people how would this day be any different from the days preceding it?

WillyGilligan · Post by **WillyGilligan** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 6:30 pm

How much are we considering 'science'. Would you be allowed to use a wheel, or fire?

Jeff Hauze · Post by **Jeff Hauze** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 6:54 pm

3278 wrote:IT'S ONLY A DAY!

And I only said a preference. What's your point?

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.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 7:18 pm

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?

3278 · Post by **3278** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 8:02 pm

WillyGilligan wrote:How much are we considering 'science'. Would you be allowed to use a wheel, or fire?

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.

Jeff wrote:And I only said a preference. What's your point?

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.

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?

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.

Jeff Hauze · Post by **Jeff Hauze** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 8:09 pm

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 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."

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.

Bonefish · Post by **Bonefish** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 8:25 pm

3278 wrote:
WillyGilligan wrote:How much are we considering 'science'. Would you be allowed to use a wheel, or fire?
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.

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.

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.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 8:25 pm

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 · Post by **AtemHutlrt** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 8:40 pm

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.

Bonefish · Post by **Bonefish** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 8:41 pm

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?

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.

paladin2019 · Post by **paladin2019** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 8:57 pm

You can't really take scienace away from humanity, or from many higher thinking animals. Science is learning from observation and using that learning to make predictions of what will happen next. Taking away technological advances is one thing, but dogs and cats do science.

Jeff Hauze · Post by **Jeff Hauze** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:16 pm

AtemHutlrt wrote:Is this something that people actually think is difficult?

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.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sun Oct 02, 2011 6:15 pm

Would you believe eventually the waters got boiled down to just post-Ionian science? That's not even camping, that's late Iron Age Europe. I don't think I'd choose to live there, but a day? Where do I sign up?

Bonefish · Post by **Bonefish** » Wed Oct 05, 2011 6:51 am

So iron age cities, too?

3278 · Post by **3278** » Wed Oct 05, 2011 10:44 am

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.]