This is something I’ve been wondering for a while now. How does the technological progress(speed) of the human race compare to the progress of the other (possible) races of the galaxy? What I mean is the speed of the technological growth. All I’m interested in is the time it took for the races to get from the invention of written speech to the dawn of the space/nuclear age.
We humans have progressed from written language 5000 (?) years ago to landing on the moon in just under 7000 years. I’d WAG we will begin becoming an interstellar race within the next 200 years, or more conservatively 500 years. By interstellar I mean the launch of at least one Generation or Sleeper ship headed toward another star. So that’s 7500 years from invention of writing to interstellar colonization.
I think we are ahead of the galactic average. My rationalization of this is that we are a very warring, and curious race. If you look back through history you can see that technology was accelerated by warfare. WW2 brought the nuclear age and the development of computers. The cold war brought the advancement of computers, the birth of the Internet, and the dawn of the Space Age. IMHO the birth of the Internet is a very important landmark in the development of technology, greater than computers, more akin to the harnessing of fire-- maybe even as great as the birth of technology itself. Another point I have is all the “accidental” discoveries we have made. The discovery of DNA, the discovery of Penicillin, and many more that I can’t remember right now.
Lets first define what could be the most important factors in the speed of technology. Here’s my ideas:
Accidental discoveries.
A drive to increase technology such as:
A)Warfare
B)Religion (although it is usually a hamper)
C)Curiosity
D)Impending Disaster
E)Commerce
Communication/sharing of Information
The Cost of survival or “The Scientists Factor” (if a civ can easily meet its cost of survival, this will open up room for non-survival jobs such as the study of Science/Tech)
The use of Technology to develop higher Technology.
Any questions, comments or rebuttals?
The topic is interesting to speculate on, but for the strict purposes of debate, there are no other known alien technological timelines against which to compare human progress.
I would agree on a premise that strife and crisis spur technology. I don’t mean necessarily war – famine and natural disasters, to name two, have caused humans to develop countering technology (respectively leading to plant domestication and earthquake-resistant buildings).
Interesting question, but its almost useless to debate it… You could probably pick any position and find some rationalisation to back you up…
For instance, you say that you think we’re ahead of the galactic average… Fair point, we have had a lot of wars and strife, but how do you know we’ve had more than the average? We could be an exceptionally peaceful race compared to the average.
Life on earth has been in existence for about 4 billion years. Suppose evolution had been only very slightly quicker - we could have reached this technology level millions of years ago. Suppose that the Roman Empire didn’t fall, and that there were no dark ages. We would probably be hundreds of years ahead of where we are now. My point is that you would technology to develop on different planets at wildly different times - at least millions of years apart. Given that, the chance that we are one of the earliest races to develop technology is pretty small.
Thats my opinion anyway, i’m sure someone else will have a completely different one with just as valid supporting arguments…
I’d also go so far as to say we have NO comparison to alien thought processes. It could be argued that violence and horniness are the two great spurs to human creativity and production, ultimately.
I don’t think it matters so much how fast the average society advances as it does when it all started.
Humans began walking around on two legs about 50,000 years, which is actually a very insignificant amount of time. Another planet around another sun could easily have gotten a 700,000 year head start (or more) on us .
However,
The gravity of the moon is one of the biggest effects it has had over the history of the earth. In the beginning, the moon was very much closer to the earth and therefore had even more of an influence. It is believed that it is very rare for a planet the size of earth to have a moon as big as the one we have. It is thought to be so rare that we could be the only planet in our galaxy or in the universe to have one. This leads some scientists to argue that life isn’t all that common in the universe (even to the point that we are alone).
So, when the planet was formed is important; as is its composition; location in relation to its star; what kind of moon(s) it has; what kind of rotation it possesses; and many other factors come into play.
The factors mentioned in the OP could possibly have made a difference of say 10,000 years. In the life of a planet that is insignificant.
Some years ago, it was said that if two different civilizations had a difference of 2,000 years in the level of their development, they could not communicate with each other. Makes you wonder about our having a major religion developed 2,000 years ago.
We may be alone, but if not it is doubtful that we are the most or least advanced. It would be reasonable to say that if one lands in your backyard, it is more developed.
I agreekniz but I’m talking about from the invention (discovery?) of technology to intersteller travel. I’m talking about a kinda Galactic IQ here.
We can’t debate the OP directly, but we can debate it indirectly. What do you think about the factors I listed for increasing the speed of tech growth?
If the aliens were unlucky enough to live on a planet with no fossil fuels (not sure if this is possible or likely), I reckon that would stall industrialisation pretty effectively, for quite a while anyway.
If they were going to burn the hydrogen, we have to assume that there would be abundant oxygen in their atmosphere (a fair assumption for other reasons also; if there were abundant oxygen in their atmosphere, there would not be abundant free hydrogen - it would probably be in the form of water, if it was in the form of water, the ywould have to apply energy in order to split it, if they had the energy to do that in bulk, they wouldn’t need the hydrogen.
Although the factors you list have come into pay since the the dawn of human history, it seems to me that the instances were few and far between until about 1500 AD. Before that there were almost as many setbacks and advances. It is probably wrong to credit one thing but the idea of printing made sharing knowledge possoble. There was a lot of groundwork done in the 19th century, but the factors you mention really did not kick in until the 20th century. The book Future Shock gives a timeline of how long it took for knowledge to double and then double again and so on. It took from the time of Christ to 1500 AD for knowledge to double. By the 1960’s it was doubling every 6 or so years and each time the cycle becomes shorter. Francis Bacon said “I take all knowledge as my domain”. He was obviously much impressed with himself, but his claim was believable. Today, specialization is necessary and even then it is hard to keep up with what is happening in sub-specialities. Although it is out of date, you may enjoy the book mentioned.
Thats exactly what I was thinking, Mangetout. I was also thinking that even if you had a 100% efficient system, ALL the energy produced from the hydroge would need to be used to make more hydrogen.
Just out of curiousity, if they used hydrogen in a fusion reactor, would the energy produced exceed the energy it would take to get more hydrogen?