Science, Technology and Understanding

Flash525Flash525 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?

Comments

  • TrollHunterTrollHunter Posts: 12,496
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I'd say if there were so few people left, technology would be the last thing on people's minds so it wouldn't even be a concern.
  • Flash525Flash525 Posts: 8,862
    Forum Member
    I'd say if there were so few people left, technology would be the last thing on people's minds so it wouldn't even be a concern.
    Except, eventually it would be, cause those 100,000 would multiply.
  • zx50zx50 Posts: 91,229
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The thing is, people on this planet have different interests. Someone trying to get to know technology and how it works that isn't that interested in how it works at all, they're going to find it VERY difficult getting to know all about it. This is why different people are experts in different subjects, because they have a big desire to learn about that subject. If the world's population dropped to a miniscule percentage, a lot of the things we use in everyday life would probably become unusable. One of the things that makes that human race so excellent is that a lot/some of it has people that are experts in a particular subject, and a lot of them subjects help us, or allow us to enjoy things.
  • zx50zx50 Posts: 91,229
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Flash525 wrote: »
    Except, eventually it would be, cause those 100,000 would multiply.

    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.
  • paulschapmanpaulschapman Posts: 35,536
    Forum Member
    Flash525 wrote: »
    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?

    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.
  • SnrDevSnrDev Posts: 6,094
    Forum Member
    I was going to say that a world population of 100,000 pretty much negates the need for most technology, but the difference would be that we got to where we are from a standing start and that starting again wouldn't be - most technology is pretty well documented and built on cumulative knowledge. It's likely that although millions of man-years worth of knowledge would be lost, there would be enough residual knowledge and documented information to pick up and move on from there, not from the awe of first seeing fire for example.

    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.
  • culturemancultureman Posts: 11,700
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Flash525 wrote: »
    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?
    Err 1% of 7.5 billion isn't 750,000.
  • Flash525Flash525 Posts: 8,862
    Forum Member
    cultureman wrote: »
    Err 1% of 7.5 billion isn't 750,000.
    I was working with 0.1% - apparently I left the .9 off from 99.9%

    Thank Goodness that's a Maths Genius amongst us.
  • zx50zx50 Posts: 91,229
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Flash525 wrote: »
    I was working with 0.1% - apparently I left the .9 off from 99.9%

    Thank Goodness that's a Maths Genius amongst us.

    Or Google.
  • maggie thecatmaggie thecat Posts: 2,241
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The wheel, fulcrum and lever are all aspects of technology that in the dim and dusty past were considered miracles of innovation. If the world went into another dark age it's possible that they might again. It's all relative.
  • ianxianx Posts: 9,190
    Forum Member
    Flash525 wrote: »
    I was working with 0.1% - apparently I left the .9 off from 99.9%
    Err 0.1% of 7.5 billion isn't 750,000.
  • Flash525Flash525 Posts: 8,862
    Forum Member
    cultureman wrote: »
    Err 1% of 7.5 billion isn't 750,000.
    Flash525 wrote: »
    I was working with 0.1% - apparently I left the .9 off from 99.9%.
    ianx wrote: »
    Err 0.1% of 7.5 billion isn't 750,000.
    Well apparently my math sucks - though I appreciate [sarcasm] people jumping in here to comment on just that.

    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.
  • The 12th DoctorThe 12th Doctor Posts: 4,338
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Imagine if only 1% of the 7 billion people on earth were left - a mere 25,000,006 people...
  • RobinOfLoxleyRobinOfLoxley Posts: 27,040
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It is statistically, almost certainly likely, that survivors would be predominantly comprised of hairdressers, telephone sanitisers and marketing types.
  • zx50zx50 Posts: 91,229
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Flash525 wrote: »
    Well apparently my math sucks - though I appreciate [sarcasm] people jumping in here to comment on just that.

    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.
  • and101and101 Posts: 2,688
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It is surprising the number of people who don't even know the basics of how stuff works nowadays. Take cars for example, how many people know how to do basic repairs like changing brake pads or a headlight bulb let alone more complicated repairs like replacing a head gasket or clutch.

    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.
  • _ben_ben Posts: 5,758
    Forum Member
    Flash525 wrote: »
    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?

    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 :D
  • spiney2spiney2 Posts: 27,058
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    the technology based infrastructure of our civilisation DOES require a "minimum number" of competent people to keep it going .......there are contingency plans for disease epiddemics and civil disorder etc ........
  • spiney2spiney2 Posts: 27,058
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    as for how all these things came to be, there are some excellent books, i will happily recommend some if asked .......
  • spiney2spiney2 Posts: 27,058
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ..... As we all know from tv science programmes, quantum mechanics is mostly flashy computer graphics accompanied by synth music ..........
  • spiney2spiney2 Posts: 27,058
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    it would be very difficult to reboot technological civilisation because all the rich ore mines allowing easy extraction of metals are already exhausted.
  • zx50zx50 Posts: 91,229
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ^ Why have you spread one post out into three?
  • SaturnVSaturnV Posts: 11,519
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I only got as far as the bit equating scientific proof with religious faith.
    They are exact opposites.
Sign In or Register to comment.