Science, Technology and Understanding
Flash525
Posts: 8,862
Forum Member
✭
Science has moved and evolved drastically over the last 50-100 years, as has Technology. Most of us use some form of Technology in our daily lives, be that driving a car, texting on a phone, watching something on the Television or just looking at the time on a watch.
How many of us actually understand what technology is though? I've been thinking about this a bit recently, but if there was suddenly a global pandemic, and 99% of the human population died, how many people would likely have the skills and/or knowledge to carry on?
Using the 99% as an example, and estimating there are 7.5billion people worldwide to date, this would leave around 750,000 people still living who would be needed to carry on, though that's just a percentage that I plucked from my head. Survivors could be as low as 100,000 people, though the number of people still living is somewhat irrelevant to the purpose of this topic.
Regardless, lets think of computer chips, or engines, or medicine, or even a camera. At some point in history, someone has managed to work all this out - though I'll never understand how anyone was able to make little bits of metal (a computer chip) allow you to drive across a country, shooting at people, in a car, whilst being chased by police (as seen in Grand Theft Auto). That's just one such example, others being the ability to record sound (again, on electronic devices) and send data over other electronic devices.
Science is something else, that's more trial and error. Medicine is something that has been tried and tested, and can (for the most part) be done with nature alone. Science as a whole though, we trust as being true much in the same way a Christian or Catholic might trust in God. My point with that? Allow me to explain;
We are told (via Science) that the universe started with a big bang, we are also told the temperature of the sun, and there are 9 planets in the solar system, there are 365 days in a year (minus leap year) the Earth has an axis of 23.4 degrees etc etc etc and we believe it all - much in the same way someone who is Religious is told a bunch of facts and believes them on faith, yet, if a scientist came up to any number of us, and presented all the equations and such that they'd deem as proof, a vast number of us wouldn't understand a god damned thing; we'd be taking their word for it, wouldn't we?
I'm probably getting a little off the topic now, apologies for that. Suffice to say, if the global population was reduced to a mere 100,000 people and our current technological state fell apart, how would we pick it all back up if most people live their daily lives using, but not understanding technology?
How many of us actually understand what technology is though? I've been thinking about this a bit recently, but if there was suddenly a global pandemic, and 99% of the human population died, how many people would likely have the skills and/or knowledge to carry on?
Using the 99% as an example, and estimating there are 7.5billion people worldwide to date, this would leave around 750,000 people still living who would be needed to carry on, though that's just a percentage that I plucked from my head. Survivors could be as low as 100,000 people, though the number of people still living is somewhat irrelevant to the purpose of this topic.
Regardless, lets think of computer chips, or engines, or medicine, or even a camera. At some point in history, someone has managed to work all this out - though I'll never understand how anyone was able to make little bits of metal (a computer chip) allow you to drive across a country, shooting at people, in a car, whilst being chased by police (as seen in Grand Theft Auto). That's just one such example, others being the ability to record sound (again, on electronic devices) and send data over other electronic devices.
Science is something else, that's more trial and error. Medicine is something that has been tried and tested, and can (for the most part) be done with nature alone. Science as a whole though, we trust as being true much in the same way a Christian or Catholic might trust in God. My point with that? Allow me to explain;
We are told (via Science) that the universe started with a big bang, we are also told the temperature of the sun, and there are 9 planets in the solar system, there are 365 days in a year (minus leap year) the Earth has an axis of 23.4 degrees etc etc etc and we believe it all - much in the same way someone who is Religious is told a bunch of facts and believes them on faith, yet, if a scientist came up to any number of us, and presented all the equations and such that they'd deem as proof, a vast number of us wouldn't understand a god damned thing; we'd be taking their word for it, wouldn't we?
I'm probably getting a little off the topic now, apologies for that. Suffice to say, if the global population was reduced to a mere 100,000 people and our current technological state fell apart, how would we pick it all back up if most people live their daily lives using, but not understanding technology?
0
Comments
I agree. A child would be born that would develop a big interest in one subject, then another would develop a big interest in another subject and so on. Developing big interests wouldn't happen every time though.
But how many of us really need to?
Consider for example - there is a good chance you have a smart phone which will give you directions.
Now according to Einstein's General Theory (IIRC) time changes depending on your distance from a gravity well (say a planet like Earth). This has been demonstrated by using two clocks, one on the ground and one in orbit.
This difference in time effects the calculation of your position using GPS satellites - now how many of us have much more than a passing interest in Einstein's General theory of relativity - or even think it is relevant when using a SatNav?
Technology succeeds most when it is unremarkable and you use it without thinking. 20 years ago a supercomputer needed gallons of water to keep cool and a staff of 10-20 to keep going - yet that smart phone is about as powerful. We did not buy billions of super computers 20 years ago but we do buy billions of smartphones as a species.
The chances of such a failure are finite - but even if it happened - I think our problems will be more immediate than updating our feed on facebook.
There would also be an innate desire to get back to that level of technology, which is different from visionaries and 'mad inventors' of bygone eras trying to convince everyone that their ideas could work and could be beneficial to us.
Thank Goodness that's a Maths Genius amongst us.
Or Google.
The mathematics regarding these potential survivors is a redundant point - I was just trying to get an example across, though someone please feel free to post the correct answer to my mathematical conclusion so that those who aren't capable of other means of intellectual input may be put out of their misery.
Taa.
You should have got Google to work it out for you.
If something major happened and a large percentage of the population was wiped out a lot of the remaining people would starve to death because they couldn't figure out how to make basic hunting tools or light a fire.
I work as an engineer designing complex electronic systems, it takes a large team of people all specialising in different fields. If 99% of us disappeared we'd be stuffed
They are exact opposites.