[Ensorceled]

> I've always been curious if our society were to collapse would the artifacts left behind indicate to a future society how to reconstruct this technology?

Fundamentally, if there is a collapse, future societies have a VERY tough row to hoe ... we've essentially dug up and drilled ALL of the easily available hydrocarbons and moved the bulk of our science and technology to storage that requires that level of science and technology to access. And encrypted most of it. They'll be trying to climb the technology ladder without coal, oil or natural gas and without any technology documentation from about 2000 onwards.

[marcosdumay]

On the other hand, they get some high-concentrated storages of refined materials, and we will leave lots of those rune-engraved panels that emit an unnatural power when exposed to light.

Anyway, unless we are talking about some really unprecedentedly disaster, we'll leave plenty of paper books to help them understand those things and bootstrap their society.

[delusional]

Unless we inexplicably decide to burn all of our accurate books because of some culture war.

[marcosdumay]

Has any book-burning movement in history actually succeeded in getting ride of the books?

Because I don't know of any, they manage to destroy a text here or there, but there were always some compatible texts that survived. AFAIK, we really didn't lose useful knowledge to them.

(And let's not forget that today we made life much harder for the book burners.)

What really does destroy knowledge is it becoming useless for a long period of time. As in losing all of CS because nobody can make a computer yet. But we have an instinct to preserve knowledge, even when it's absolutely useless. This has already saved a lot of technology, and it's hard to imagine how some disaster would stop it.

Personally, I have a hard time imagining something that would throw us at the stone (or bronze, or iron) age, but still fail to destroy all the life on Earth.

[norir]

Most of the early christian texts were suppressed and destroyed. In the 1940s some ancient texts that had been buried for nearly 2000 years were found in Egypt and not realizing their value, a family member used many of them for kindling. Before the discovery of the Nag Hammadi texts, the existence of these materials was known from references in orthodox texts but they had been completely lost. Of course we have no idea of what was contained in the texts that were burned and we have no idea what else is out there so we don't even know what has been lost. Similarly, parmenides is considered by many philosophers to be the "father of logic" which he brought forth in a long poem. Unfortunately, we only have about 160 of the estimated 800 verses in the poem, so again we are lacking basic knowledge of the origins of our civilization that was written down at one time but has been lost.

Digital information seems especially likely to me to be lost over time because the recording nearly always requires an instrument to extract and these instruments do not have nearly the durability of books.

[wl]

The near loss of texts in the Nag Hammadi library and the fragmentary transmission of Parmenides (or Sappho, Thales, Manetho, and countless others, for that matter) is not about book burning. That's playing into ideologically-motivated narratives about knowledge vs. religion and ignores the reality of textual transmission prior to movable type printing making the production of books relatively inexpensive. We've lost most of the texts from the ancient world not because they've been suppressed or deliberately destroyed, but because tended to be written on organic materials that do not stand the test of time. In a few parts of the world like Egypt, the hot, dry climate preserves some of these ancient manuscripts to varying degrees. But for the most part, ancient texts survive because there was interest in those texts sufficient for scribes to expend considerable effort in making new copies by hand as older copies decayed or wore out. In the ancient world, texts died not from suppression, but from decay combined with lack of interest or neglect.

If you want to talk about early Christian texts, the Didache is instructive. It's orthodox and never was suppressed. It's earlier than much—if not all—of the canonical Greek scriptures. However, the canonical scriptures overshadowed it and it became obscure, to the point where the only known complete copy today is a single 11th century manuscript that was found behind a bookshelf in a monastery in the 19th century.

[norir]

> The near loss of texts in the Nag Hammadi library and the fragmentary transmission of Parmenides (or Sappho, Thales, Manetho, and countless others, for that matter) is not about book burning.

I can't speak to the reasons for the loss of Parmenides' poem, but scholars seem to think that the Nag Hammadi was indeed buried to prevent their destruction after Athanasius condemned non-canonical sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library.

Regardless, my point is that at least a written text has the chance of being discovered and understood in the future. The arctic code vault is actually interesting in this regard, but decoding it to find the jewels would likely be extremely challenging. There also is a lot of important technical information that isn't on github.

[psunavy03]

> Most of the early Christian texts were suppressed and destroyed. In the 1940s some ancient texts that had been buried for nearly 2000 years were found in Egypt and not realizing their value, a family member used many of them for kindling.

But they didn't do that because they were trying to destroy heretical thought. They did it because they didn't realize what they had, they were poor, and needed kindling to stay warm or cook food. That's an important difference. Many ancient texts have been lost this way not out of malice, but just because that's what happens throughout the ages.

[johnnyworker]

> Has any book-burning movement in history actually succeeded in getting ride of the books?

> Because I don't know of any

Of course you haven't, by definition. We find out about the things that survive destruction, not the ones that don't.

edit:

As for the instinct to preserve knowledge, that's not all we have. We also have a profit-maximizing infection that spread to every organ, so to speak. Books printed today don't last very long. Heck, not even newspapers and tech companies give a crap about link rot! Archive.org is a team of volunteers. Wikipedia is very hit or miss, and the ego of some seems to override whatever "instinct" we might have real quick.

So, frankly, I'm not seeing it. Even computing is rotting from under our hands. The Amiga came with schematics of the machine as part of the manual, while nowadays repair shops have to hunt for info. If companies were allowed, they'd each have their own incompatible charger cable, you bet. And let's not even talk about about 100MB applications that do 100KB things, because it's easier for the developer to never care about anything close to the machine and just use the bloated tool chain they already know. Recently I asked for a good (as in, other than "Microsoft wants you to") reason to use Win 11, and just got downvoted. Ever since Win 11 was announced I haven't gotten one answer to that question, ever. There's people who turn their nose up at it, and people who use it who don't want to talk about why. I could go on.

> No greater mistake can be made than to imagine that what has been written latest is always the more correct; that what is written later on is an improvement on what was written previously; and that every change means progress. Men who think and have correct judgment, and people who treat their subject earnestly, are all exceptions only. Vermin is the rule everywhere in the world: it is always at hand and busily engaged in trying to improve in its own way upon the mature deliberations of the thinkers. [..] An old and excellent book is frequently shelved for new and bad ones; which, written for the sake of money, wear a pretentious air and are much eulogised by the authors’ friends. In science, a man who wishes to distinguish himself brings something new to market; this frequently consists in his denouncing some principle that has been previously held as correct, so that he may establish a wrong one of his own. Sometimes his attempt is successful for a short time, when a return is made to the old and correct doctrine. These innovators are serious about nothing else in the world than their own priceless person, and it is this that they wish to make its mark.

-- Arthur Schopenhauer

[chris37879]

Book-burning specifically, no, but the Nazis destroyed a lot of research from a German institute that studied gender issues. Knowledge of the place and some of its research still exists, but a lot of the research was simply gone once the Nazis rose to power. That seems like way less of a liability these days with the internet, but even that is prone to government meddling, and when the people that agree with book burnings run the government, well, there's a very famous prescient book on the topic.

[kragen]

yes, in most cases

the maya codices and the khipu were lost in very nearly their entirety, and the more abundant maya hieroglyphs carved on stone have been only partly deciphered. the khipu are entirely undeciphered except for arithmetic

of carthaginian literature not one book remains

the khwarazmian empire is known from the accounts of its neighbors and destroyers

qin shi huang ordered the burning of the history books for every kingdom he conquered; consequently what we know of most of them today is little more than legend, except for what the histories of qin tell us

in countless smaller-scale examples we don't even know the names of the nations that perished along with their language and books

[agentultra]

It was by an incredible amount of luck that Lucretius' On the Nature of Things is still published today. If it wasn't for a group of Florentine hipsters the last copy might have rotted on a shelf in a neglected monastery library. Who knows how the Renaissance might have progressed without it and whether the Enlightenment would have been different.

[kragen]

yes but this wasn't the result of intentional book-burning directed at suppressing epicureanism; though the christians were not really a fan, lucretius wrote too early to directly attack christianity, so it was never banned by the church

[nuancebydefault]

I would say this is a text-book example of the term survivorship bias (smiley)

[me_me_me]

What a coincidence, I had that discussion with my friends yesterday.

We came to conclusions that the scenarios of rebuilding society back up are based on the type of collapse. The greater drop (destruction events) and greater time gap before rebuilding can start anew the harder it would get.

A dark age collapse - worst case scenario - where people slowly loose knowledge over generations - due to lack of institutions to protect the knowledge, sounds like a game over scenario. Small clusters of agrarian people would not have resources to support an engineering department tasked with preserving knowledge that is useless for time being.

Slowly the tech that could have been re-used or restarted would deteriorate beyond usability, and then beyond repeatability.

Its a scary scenario, probably good basis for a book series... there is probably plenty of novels written with that scenario already ;)

[ianburrell]

I think slow collapse would be the best case. It would give time for technologies like blacksmithing to flourish. It would also mean that advanced technology could be used if couldn’t be produced. It would also mean civilization that could have reason to save books. Finally, there is an advantage to knowledge, technology, and science. We forget that pre-industrial technology can be produced on small scale, and that musket and steel armor is a huge advantage.

In a hard collapse, all of that would be lost trying to survive. Books would be burned for heat, electronics forgotten, and blacksmiths killed accidentally.

[daemonologist]

A Canticle for Leibowitz comes to mind, though while the preservation of knowledge after collapse is a central premise it is not what the novel is about, exactly. Worth reading in any case.

[me_me_me]

Sounds like my next book then :)

[littlestymaar]

> we've essentially dug up and drilled ALL of the easily available hydrocarbons

And basically every accessible ore deposits as well… You can't reach bronze age if there's no available copper nor tin, you just end up stuck in the stone age forever.

[eternityforest]

And yet there seems to be shockingly little effort towards making sure that doesn't happen. Why isn't there an underground bombproof chip fab somewhere?

It's like as if people don't really care about technological society, they just do what they always do, expand and try to do stuff that is hard and impressive, and if the computers went away... they'd be just as happy as a blacksmith or something...

Or maybe even happier.

[lolc]

A modern chip fab needs a supply chain the size of humanity. And you can't bury a reserve humanity in case the regular one goes bust. A buried chip fab would be scrapped for steel.

[stevezsa8]

23 years or so of lost knowledge can be regained in the grand scheme of things. But yes, the lack of easy access to coal and oil would be a problem. Maybe the next civilization will be more careful.

That's why I think we should all be trying to help keep society going. I try to do my bit. I just wish the preppers, survivalists, deniers would get involved in their community and try to save it too.

[Ensorceled]

I guess I'm kind of thinking of it from the point of view that of all the technologies that we are inventing to allow civilization to survive without coal and oil are the most likely to be lost.

[Tade0]

Unless it's a complete wipeout, there will be plenty of bicycles, solar panels and IKEA knives left - that's a significant leg up in rebuilding civilisation.

Before coal there was wood, before oil there was whaling - when the global population is under 1bln, energy isn't much of an issue.

The wars over it though - that would be the tough part.

[plagiarist]

I would really like to read a novel about future archeologists who rediscover brute force password lists and rainbow tables as they investigate a ruin. Oh, maybe they could be specifically looking for LLM models, LLMs being no longer possible to train due to energy costs.

[arethuza]

Only to discover (too late of course) that it was the LLMs that caused the collapse....

(See: AFUtD).

[lacrimacida]

LLMs and even weapons and nuclear bombs are harmless by themselves. It’s about who ends up in control of something that has the potential to do more harm than good then I could imagine it’s downhill from there.

[Loughla]

Ever read ringworld? Society without access to minerals and fuel resources. Untold technology that the natives have zero capacity to understand or harness. That thought was very engaging for me. Until all the rishing. Then it spiraled.

[ianburrell]

There is still a lot of surface coal deposits left. Big open pit mines in Wyoming and Germany. It isn’t the best coal, and is far from areas with ores. We will never mine it since would cause catastrophic warming.

[userbinator]

we've essentially dug up and drilled ALL of the easily available hydrocarbons

...and put much of it back into the earth in highly processed form, i.e. plastics in landfill.

[politician]

This is why I think that we should resolve the climate change crisis by reducing excess atmospheric carbon by seeding the oceans with iron. Oceanic iron seeding results in plankton blooms that consume atmospheric carbon. When the plankton dies, it accumulates on the seafloor. Over geologic time scales, the accumulated plankton will turn into hydrocarbons, renewing the supply of cheap fuels for a post-human civilization millions of years in the future.

[andrepd]

We can't even switch to renewables because that would make some capital owners slightly less money and you're thinking of civilisations millions of years in the future...

[throwaway96952]

Where I live, it's because the taxpayers would have to pay too much and would be exposed to a lot of outside risk (it's usually not that sunny here, and we don't have space for wind turbines nor where to landfill the replaced blades).

Here it's the capital owners pushing renewables because it's one of the easiest, cheapest, least objectionable (in case of solar) and least risky energy projects you can build on almost any useless piece of land (everywhere is near the grid in this country), but they just can't fulfill the demands of the state-owned energy company with their solar arrays and wind turbines. Hydro is out of the question, the water-environmentalists hate that - for good reasons I have to say.

There is a nearby country that "did" (legislated) the switch... In result, they are the most polluting ones in every metric (per capita, per kWh, per km^2) while having the most expensive electricity on the continent; all metrics are getting worse every year there. Not a good look for the switch, certainly doesn't make most voters in my country motivated to even try - and you'd need to convince half the country. Right now the support is around 5-10%.

In conclusion, given that both our worlds coexist at the same time - I think it's not that simple to switch and wouldn't be looking for the reason in either capitalists or states. Perhaps the technology is just not ready for a full-scale switch yet.

[rurp]

If modern society collapses, starting back over with the same approach isn't the best plan. Cheap hydrocarbons are sort of like VC funding. They have allowed society to advance extremely rapidly, in a totally unsustainable way. We have yet to find out if we can stick the landing on transitioning to a sustainable lifestyle. It's possible that humans just aren't wired in a way to responsibly manage the risks introduced by sufficiently advanced technology, at least not at the current rate of change.

In a post-apocalyptic world, survivors should really be rethinking the approach that brought that about. Avoiding the cheap hydrocarbon consumption phase might result in a much longer lasting civilazation next time around.

[ianburrell]

In addition to coal that I mentioned above, it should be possible to have industrial society with renewables. It wouldn’t be as high energy as ours or as industrialized. But if they knew the science and some technology they could skip the big iron phase.

Early power could come from burning wood and windmills. That doesn’t have enough power for smelting iron, but there is more than lots of iron, Electricity could come from concentrated solar, wind, hydro, or geothermal. Nuclear would be the big jump.