Evidence for ET is mounting daily, but not proven.

[baric]

The integrated circuit wouldn't need to be invented again. It was already invented. The factories, tooling, manuals, books all would still exist.

And completely unusable. I work in one of the most "automated" semiconductor fabs in the country and it easily requires over a hundred experienced engineers, software developers and tool technicians to maintain. In your scenario, these people have all starved to death. And without people who understand, in great detail, every piece of equipment in the fabrication process, this billion-dollar factory becomes nothing but a collection of expensive paperweights.

Any people doing the "relearning" would make far quicker progress by reading existing books and computer records, and restoring existing tooling, than it took mankind to learn everything the first time around.

I think you still do not grasp the scope of this problem. Where are these books? Remember, there is no internet, no phones, no long-distance travel and only sporadic regions with electricity. All information is now regional and very limited. All of the existing SC fabrication equipment is built upon the knowledge and experience of previous generations of engineers and scientists. I have little doubt that other vital 21st-century industries are in a similar situation.

You would have to start over, most likely without oil, since all of the easy oil has been extracted and consumed over the past two centuries.

[KABOOM]

This is evolved into a very interesting discussion/debate.

The rarity or "one-time-only" nature of abiogenesis on Earth
Many of weighed in that N=1 in this regard on Earth and extrapolate from there as to its rarity elsewhere.

Is there any evidence that this only happened "once" on Earth?

Is this based on the DNA-based genome analysis in which all known living/extinct species evolved from a common single cellular form of life?

If Yes, is that really any evidence that abiogenesis only happened once?

Couldn't the same basic recipe (which admittedly we don't yet know) have simply occurred in multiple locations at multiple points in time ~ 700 to 800 million years after Earth was formed? I would assume YES, (vs. the contrary view that this only happened once at one particular moment in time at one "ground zero" locale from which we can all look back upon as "home"). So if YES, than does the recipe (at least given the "common conditions" on Earth) simply always produce the same initial result? Maybe. If not, isn't it plausible that simply the most successful replicating recipe simply dominated the other less successful replicating results and that since single cell bacterium (and their precursors) presumably replicate very quickly and that the most successful result (the one that we all hail from) simply expanded to fill the limited fertile niches that existed back then and crowded out any other less successful results?

Is there any real evidence on any of the above? If not, than to me it just opinion as to whether abiogenesis is extremely rare or inevitable given the right host conditions.

[IsaacKuo]

And completely unusable. I work in one of the most "automated" semiconductor fabs in the country and it easily requires over a hundred experienced engineers, software developers and tool technicians to maintain. In your scenario, these people have all starved to death.

Depending on where they live, perhaps. But there are semiconductor fabs elsewhere also. It's not a technology that is limited to one country.

I think you still do not grasp the scope of this problem. Where are these books?

In the surviving countries, and also in libraries in the destroyed countries. You can't eat books, so they will survive desperate starving masses even in the most affected countries. You also can't eat computer disks.

Remember, there is no internet, no phones, no long-distance travel and only sporadic regions with electricity. All information is now regional and very limited.

Plausibly, the internet and phone networks are mostly regional. That's good enough. If even one high tech country survives relatively unscathed, that's enough to keep things going. Plausibly there will be several.

You would have to start over, most likely without oil, since all of the easy oil has been extracted and consumed over the past two centuries.

As already noted, fossil fuel oil production would continue. Bobunf listed many countries all over the world which are potential sources. I would even add the Middle East, because I don't really see more than one or two of the oil producing countries being nuked.

Even without this, the easiest "oil" available is oil converted to plastic. (You can't eat plastic, so it survives the desperate starving masses in the most affected countries.)

There would also be biodiesel, which becomes far more attractive with a greatly reduced world population. The nuclear winter effects only last a few decades, after which there is a vast overabundance in potential agricultural production. Even plain old wood charcoal becomes a sustainable fuel source with a severely lowered global population.

[MaDeR]

While I do not agree with grim predictions of Baric, I agree that global nuclear war is something that cannot be shrugged off with "few decades, at most a hundred year".

You all seem to completely ignore or handwave away something called entropy. This is tendency of machines (and in fact everything) to become broken and unusable. And in world, where 95% of humanity was killed*, no one can restart technology sufficiently fast to have equpiment ready in time to replace what was broken. I personally see a few hundred years before re-achieving today level.

* People that would be actually useful in restarting technology will have bigged dieoff than average. Strongest will survive, not geeks, dorks and nerds.

[baric]

Depending on where they live, perhaps. But there are semiconductor fabs elsewhere also. It's not a technology that is limited to one country.

Look, this is one area where I definitely know what I'm talking about. All semiconductor fabs require a global network of tool and chemical suppliers in order to function, in addition to the scores of engineers, programmers and technicians. Tools require regular and frequent maintenance to support the tolerances of the manufacturing process. Fabs need wafers from silicon production plants on the front end, and extensive information sharing with external assembly/test sites on the back end. And all of this just gets you a bunch of tiny chips, which are useless outside of the products that they are designed for.

In the surviving countries, and also in libraries in the destroyed countries. You can't eat books, so they will survive desperate starving masses even in the most affected countries. You also can't eat computer disks.

Libraries will provide an excellent source of fuel to help survive the first real winter of a nuclear winter.

Plausibly, the internet and phone networks are mostly regional. That's good enough. If even one high tech country survives relatively unscathed, that's enough to keep things going. Plausibly there will be several.

What is your expertise in the proper maintenance of phone networks? Do you realize that modern services like phone networks, hydroelectric plants and oil refineries and all of the transmission networks they require must have regular maintenance in order to function?

Anything that is electronic will be broken down and useless within two decades of no maintenance or replacement parts. As grim as that sounds, that is an unfortunate inevitability of a societal collapse.

As already noted, fossil fuel oil production would continue. Bobunf listed many countries all over the world which are potential sources. I would even add the Middle East, because I don't really see more than one or two of the oil producing countries being nuked.

Right. Because in a war, no one ever targets fuel production sites. :|

Even without this, the easiest "oil" available is oil converted to plastic. (You can't eat plastic, so it survives the desperate starving masses in the most affected countries.)

Explain how this "scavenge plastic for oil" process will work efficiently. I'm curious!

There would also be biodiesel, which becomes far more attractive with a greatly reduced world population. The nuclear winter effects only last a few decades, after which there is a vast overabundance in potential agricultural production. Even plain old wood charcoal becomes a sustainable fuel source with a severely lowered global population.

Well, at least we agree that people will be chopping wood for heat.

[Bobunf]

The rarity or "one-time-only" nature of abiogenesis on Earth
Many of weighed in that N=1 in this regard on Earth and extrapolate from there as to its rarity elsewhere.

Is there any evidence that this only happened "once" on Earth?

to me it just opinion as to whether abiogenesis is extremely rare or inevitable given the right host conditions.

I think you're asking for proof of a negative, as in, "Prove that no second abiogenesis ever occurred on Earth." As you pointed out billions of such occurrences could have happened, left no trace whatever, and here we are four billion years later in utter ignorance of such happenings. Oodles of ETs could have landed on Earth, left no trace, and here we are millions of years later in utter in ignorance of such happenings. Discussions of such propositions seem to me rather pointless

Well, maybe all that happened, but I'm inclined to say, "So what?" What we don't know, we don't know.

But I don't think that's the proposition under discussion, which, I believe, runs more usefully as something like this: "Is there any evidence that abiogenesis has occurred more than once in the universe?" We know it could have occurred 10^40 times or more; the question is, "Is there any evidence of more than one occurrence?"

I know large numbers of elephants could have paraded down the street in front of my house. I look, there aren't any. I ask the neighbors, the zoo, google circuses, look in the newspaper, check history books, archaeological records, police reports. Nothing. I still can't say that I'm certain that no elephants have ever paraded down the street in front of my house. But, after all of that, it does seem less likely. I might be inclined to say, "Probably not."

If we had no way of identifying a second abiogenesis, we might just have to say, "We are utterly ignorant, and have no idea. We just don't have a clue. 50/50." If we have no information at all, the probability that the answer to a yes/no question is "yes" is 50%. Nature doesn't prefer yes or no, on or off, positive or negative.

It is possible to answer "yes" to this proposition. Or, at least, "Probably yes." If life that clearly did not have a common origin with Earth life were found on Mars. If a very different looking ET arrived. If we had a substantiated theory of abiiogenesis that made it likely in circumstances that are not too unlikely.

Lacking such a theory, we look for evidence. We'd probably look for evidence anyway. We start with a 50/50 probability. Add in all of the organic chemicals hanging around in the universe; the probability goes up. Extremophiles; the probability goes up. Liquid water in all kinds of place in our solar system; the probability goes up. Oodles of exoplanets, the probability goes up. Etc. Wouldn't you agree? If there were no exoplanets, no organic chemicals anywhere except on Earth, no liquid water anywhere else, you'd certainly be a bit more glum about the prospects?

On the other hand, we look for evidence of abiogenesis on Earth today. We don't see any at all. It can't be that easy. Probability goes down. n'est-ce pas? We look for evidence of it happening in the past; in DNA, in fossils. We don't see any at all. If it happened, it couldn't have been all that robust. Probability goes down. We look on Mars and other places in the solar system; no little green men, no fossils, and, most importantly, no evidence of any effect on the environment. If there is any, it can't be very robust. Probability goes down. Then there's no evidence of ETs anywhere else. Probability goes down.

Each piece of evidence gives us a clue. It's like there's a trillion boxes (really more like 10^40 boxes) that might contain cats. We see cat fur, droppings, smell something that could be. We open the first box - nothing. Well that doesn't prove much. The second, third...millionth... Still nothing. Each box we open with no cats reduces the probability that the next box will have a cat We'll never be able to open all the boxes, but after a while we might develop some idea about the scarcity of cats in boxes.

Or life in the universe.

One could dismiss these on-going probability assessments as mere opinion. But I think it's more than that.

Yes, there's evidence. But not certainty by a very wide margin.

[Bobunf]

All semiconductor fabs require a global network of tool and chemical suppliers in order to function, in addition to the scores of engineers, programmers and technicians. Tools require regular and frequent maintenance to support the tolerances of the manufacturing process. Fabs need wafers from silicon production plants on the front end, and extensive information sharing with external assembly/test sites on the back end. And all of this just gets you a bunch of tiny chips, which are useless outside of the products that they are designed for.

In less than 100 years we went from near complete ignorance of electricity, nearly a month to exchange messages between New York and London (not the kind of "global network" we're accustomed to today) to the first ICs.

It does not seem credible that, in the presence of complete knowledge of how to do this, it would take longer.

Libraries will provide an excellent source of fuel to help survive the first real winter of a nuclear winter.

This knowledge, and almost all other human knowledge, is duplicated all over the world in literally millions of locations (some exceedingly secure) in all kinds of formats. It could be broadcast from a single location to all the rest of the world. Knowledge will exist in the heads of tens of millions of people. It's really hard to see how any significant amount of knowledge could be lost with a 95% die off.

no one ever targets fuel production sites.

No one ever targets millions of production sites in countries of which they barely have knowledge. There aren't that many nukes.

[IsaacKuo]

Look, this is one area where I definitely know what I'm talking about. All semiconductor fabs require a global network of tool and chemical suppliers in order to function, in addition to the scores of engineers, programmers and technicians. Tools require regular and frequent maintenance to support the tolerances of the manufacturing process. Fabs need wafers from silicon production plants on the front end, and extensive information sharing with external assembly/test sites on the back end. And all of this just gets you a bunch of tiny chips, which are useless outside of the products that they are designed for.

I'm guessing you are familiar with Texas. Which would be in bad shape after a major global thermonuclear war, but let's pretend Texas survives unscathed and with a food supply (as an analog of a more plausible surviving country, that you would be less familiar with). Note that Texas represents only 0.36 percent of the world's population, or only 7 percent of the posited global population after 95% global population loss. Still, the population of Texas makes it a rough analog of Taiwan or Australia.

What would need to be imported from outside Texas? As in, there's just no way to find an alternative within Texas.

Libraries will provide an excellent source of fuel to help survive the first real winter of a nuclear winter.

Existing stocks of fuel will be an even better source of fuel for the first winter. The basic problem is that food will run out. People who have starved to death have no need for heating oil.

Do you realize that modern services like phone networks, hydroelectric plants and oil refineries and all of the transmission networks they require must have regular maintenance in order to function?

Of course they require regular maintenance, and that's why they will be limited to regions which are less affected.

Right. Because in a war, no one ever targets fuel production sites. :|

Assuming the United States is involved in the nuclear war, it is possible that the enemy will nuke oil infrastructure in Texas, Louisiana, and other states (depending on their exact goals and thinking). But they wouldn't nuke random neutral countries with no nuclear weapons.

Explain how this "scavenge plastic for oil" process will work efficiently. I'm curious!

Plastic can be burnt directly. By mass, plastic waste releases more energy than any other waste. This has prompted research into plastic waste burning as a green energy alternative. The limiting factor is research into limiting/eliminating toxic pollution. But in this post-apocalyptic world, pollution considerations would take a back seat to energy needs.

[KABOOM]

I think you're asking for proof of a negative, as in, "Prove that no second abiogenesis ever occurred on Earth." As you pointed out billions of such occurrences could have happened, left no trace whatever, and here we are four billion years later in utter ignorance of such happenings. Oodles of ETs could have landed on Earth, left no trace, and here we are millions of years later in utter in ignorance of such happenings. Discussions of such propositions seem to me rather pointless

Well, maybe all that happened, but I'm inclined to say, "So what?" What we don't know, we don't know.

But I don't think that's the proposition under discussion, which, I believe, runs more usefully as something like this: "Is there any evidence that abiogenesis has occurred more than once in the universe?" We know it could have occurred 10^40 times or more; the question is, "Is there any evidence of more than one occurrence?"

I know large numbers of elephants could have paraded down the street in front of my house. I look, there aren't any. I ask the neighbors, the zoo, google circuses, look in the newspaper, check history books, archaeological records, police reports. Nothing. I still can't say that I'm certain that no elephants have ever paraded down the street in front of my house. But, after all of that, it does seem less likely. I might be inclined to say, "Probably not."

If we had no way of identifying a second abiogenesis, we might just have to say, "We are utterly ignorant, and have no idea. We just don't have a clue. 50/50." If we have no information at all, the probability that the answer to a yes/no question is "yes" is 50%. Nature doesn't prefer yes or no, on or off, positive or negative.

It is possible to answer "yes" to this proposition. Or, at least, "Probably yes." If life that clearly did not have a common origin with Earth life were found on Mars. If a very different looking ET arrived. If we had a substantiated theory of abiiogenesis that made it likely in circumstances that are not too unlikely.

Lacking such a theory, we look for evidence. We'd probably look for evidence anyway. We start with a 50/50 probability. Add in all of the organic chemicals hanging around in the universe; the probability goes up. Extremophiles; the probability goes up. Liquid water in all kinds of place in our solar system; the probability goes up. Oodles of exoplanets, the probability goes up. Etc. Wouldn't you agree? If there were no exoplanets, no organic chemicals anywhere except on Earth, no liquid water anywhere else, you'd certainly be a bit more glum about the prospects?

On the other hand, we look for evidence of abiogenesis on Earth today. We don't see any at all. It can't be that easy. Probability goes down. n'est-ce pas? We look for evidence of it happening in the past; in DNA, in fossils. We don't see any at all. If it happened, it couldn't have been all that robust. Probability goes down. We look on Mars and other places in the solar system; no little green men, no fossils, and, most importantly, no evidence of any effect on the environment. If there is any, it can't be very robust. Probability goes down. Then there's no evidence of ETs anywhere else. Probability goes down.

Each piece of evidence gives us a clue. It's like there's a trillion boxes (really more like 10^40 boxes) that might contain cats. We see cat fur, droppings, smell something that could be. We open the first box - nothing. Well that doesn't prove much. The second, third...millionth... Still nothing. Each box we open with no cats reduces the probability that the next box will have a cat We'll never be able to open all the boxes, but after a while we might develop some idea about the scarcity of cats in boxes.

Or life in the universe.

One could dismiss these on-going probability assessments as mere opinion. But I think it's more than that.

Yes, there's evidence. But not certainty by a very wide margin.

Thank you for the response. I do understand all of that.

Please clarify what you mean by "once". Do you truly mean that the biotic ingredients simply became activated at one singular point in time in exact location and everything else took off from there? Or (the intuitively more likely path) that "one type" of biogenesis ocurred, but multiple times in multiple places (same ingredients, same recipe, same result in spawning replicating entities)?

I would never expect for anyone to see naturally occuring biogenesis (vs labratory concocted) anywhere on Earth in the present era given the dramatically different environment and more importantly that most niches are already filled with robust organisms.

So to me, until we have more "evidence" it is still a 50/50 ish proposition as to whether Earth only had "one type" of biogenesis or whether there were less robust forms that never got any traction (of which there would not be any evidence left behind at all).

[baric]

In less than 100 years we went from near complete ignorance of electricity, nearly a month to exchange messages between New York and London to the first ICs.

It does not seem credible that, in the presence of complete knowledge of how to do this, it would take longer.

The world population was about 1.5 billion when Edison perfected the process of electrical distribution. At the time, there was an international society of scientists & engineers that laid the groundwork to that point, and for all subsequent advances, with the resources that can only be provided by large, organized and educated societies.

To suggest that some post-apocalyptic population just one-fifth that size, beginning at a point of securing basic needs for survival, could reproduce those achievements in the same amount of time borders on delusion.

This knowledge, and almost all other human knowledge, is duplicated all over the world in literally millions of locations (some exceedingly secure) in all kinds of formats. It could be broadcast from a single location to all the rest of the world. Knowledge will exist in the heads of tens of millions of people. It's really hard to see how any significant amount of knowledge could be lost with a 95% die off.

Whoa. This knowledge exists in the heads of tens of millions of survivors? Out of 350 million?

The only secure surviving format for information will be books. And in order to put that nearly-lost wisdom to use, the grandchildren of the survivors will need to have been properly educated so that they can figure out how to collect the raw materials, refine them, craft proper tools, construct manufacturing equipment, etc, etc. It's an incredibly daunting task to rebuild that three centuries of infrastructure for a 21st-century technology. Most likely, they will take small, useful steps from what they have left, allowing the advanced knowledge disappear and be rediscovered many generations later.

And let's face it, that would only be the scientifically motivated grandchildren. The vast majority, just as today, will be more interested in pursuing the mundane activities of eating, sleeping, having sex and generally doing the bare minimum required to enjoy their existence.

No one ever targets millions of production sites in countries of which they barely have knowledge. There aren't that many nukes.

You stated a 95% die-off percentage, not I. That means those countries are hit extremely hard as well.

[Bobunf]

every piece of electronic equipment would be completely unuseable within 20 years (or so) of the catastrophe.

Aside from my own collection of antique computers, which continue to work well after the 20 year expiry date, what about Voyager I and II, which have ICs and lots of electronic equipment that were manufactured nearly 40 years ago and which still continue to work?

[baric]

I'm guessing you are familiar with Texas. Which would be in bad shape after a major global thermonuclear war, but let's pretend Texas survives unscathed and with a food supply (as an analog of a more plausible surviving country, that you would be less familiar with). Note that Texas represents only 0.36 percent of the world's population, or only 7 percent of the posited global population after 95% global population loss. Still, the population of Texas makes it a rough analog of Taiwan or Australia.

ok, fair enough

What would need to be imported from outside Texas? As in, there's just no way to find an alternative within Texas.

If everyone in TX survived, I think we would have oil for a while since we have so many refineries in the Gulf and the expertise to maintain them. Semiconductor fabrication would still collapse, and electronic devices would quickly degrade over time (we don't create most of those, anyway). Automobiles would gradually break down for lack of replacement parts. This would cripple a primary means of transporting resources across the state.

Beseiged on all sides, securing the borders from millions of refugees would be an impossible task. This undoubtedly would lead to a rapid militarization of the government to stop it, fulfilling the wet dreams of so many Texans. Without a doubt, public schools would be shut down for the foreseeable future as a frivolous luxury during times of crisis.

As the national monetary system collapses, crime and looting would become rampant among the heavily armed civilian population, overwhelming the police force. Church attendance would rise dramatically and we'd probably see a crass, opportunistic anti-science backlash. As an atheist, I would probably have to false-convert to stay alive!

I'd predict Somalia-like anarchy within 3-5 years, electricity and oil gone within 10, settling on an 16th-century agrarian economy within a few decades as the population stabilizes to a much lower level.

That's if Texas somehow magically avoids the climactic disruptions caused by a nuclear winter and is able to reliably grow its own food. (a big if, imo)

Yes, I am a pessimist. This discussion has led to some introspection as to why, and I honestly think it's because I've worked in the SC industry for two decades where international dependencies are vital and unavoidable, and the products of our labor have ingrained themselves as vital components in so many other key industries.

[Bobunf]

Thank you for the response. I do understand all of that.

Please clarify what you mean by "once". Do you truly mean that the biotic ingredients simply became activated at one singular point in time in exact location and everything else took off from there?

"Is there any evidence that abiogenesis has occurred more than once in the universe?"

That is the question, is it not?

The answer to date, I think, is "no." Which doesn't mean the probability is zero, but it certainly means that the probability that abiogenesis has occurred more than once in the universe is less than 100%, i.e., less than certainty.

I would never expect for anyone to see naturally occuring biogenesis (vs labratory concocted) anywhere on Earth in the present era given the dramatically different environment and more importantly that most niches are already filled with robust organisms.

So to me, until we have more "evidence" it is still a 50/50 ish proposition as to whether Earth only had "one type" of biogenesis or whether there were less robust forms that never got any traction (of which there would not be any evidence left behind at all).

You don't expect to see it today or tomorrow; you don't expect to see it from yesterday. That doesn't leave a lot of room for evidence.

I would not be quite so pessimistic. There's DNA and fossil evidence which constrain the pathways and history of another abiogenesis, but could also pretty conclusively demonstrate that it did occur. There's potential theory, which could explain how this works, and from which we could draw conclusions based on foundations that could be very secure.

[baric]

Aside from my own collection of antique computers, which continue to work well after the 20 year expiry date, what about Voyager I and II, which have ICs and lots of electronic equipment that were manufactured nearly 40 years ago and which still continue to work?

ICs for spacecraft are manufactured to strict thermal specifications that do not apply to consumer electronics. Automotive ICs are manufactured to a stricter standard because of safety concerns, but not as much as NASA's.

Old hardware is more reliable because it is simpler with fewer internal points of failure. However, they are consequently much more limited and incapable of running the software needed to support modern equipment. For example, we have one vendor program that requires Windows 2000 to run, which is considered a dinosaur by current IT standards. Good luck finding anything over 40 years old and still usable with more than 64K (Kilobytes!) of addressable memory.

[KABOOM]

I do not envision a nuclear war and if used I would expect such usage to be tactical and limited and nothing approaching a 95% kill off.

That said, I don't that it is pertinent at all to the big picture answer as to the impact on the Fermi or Drake equation if it takes mankind 500 years instead of 50 years to technologically recover from a 95% dead apocalyptic war.

Keep in mind that our duration here is time limited due to pending Red Giant phase of our sun, which some estimate to have wiped out all life (or at least land-based life) within the next 500 million years. To the extent that "advanced life" is more likely to arise in system's mothered by Sol-like suns and the ramp up period is similar (measured in billions not millions of years) this end level constraint does also provide a natural outside limiter for how long advanced technical societies would have to colonize elsewhere or perish.

The financial resource allocation issue is one that is glossed over in my opinion with regards to advocates of manned interstellar travel. Almost by conscription men are Darwinian beasts, hard-wired to compete for goods, resources and to live and to procreate. Expending huge amounts of capital on projects with realistic lead times of "hundreds of years" (perhaps longer) is something that I can never see being acceptable to any but the most ardent futurists among us. Assuming that abiogenesis is the root cause of life anywhere else in the galaxy, than any other advanced society will have had to similarly "evolve" from very humble, competitive origins. To develop and advance requires a tremendous amount of resource consumption, so it may cut against the grain for most such societies to be able to accept a re-allocation of huge resources away from consumption and be essentially banked for a thousands years in the future.

[IsaacKuo]

If everyone in TX survived, I think we would have oil for a while since we have so many refineries in the Gulf and the expertise to maintain them. Semiconductor fabrication would still collapse, and electronic devices would quickly degrade over time (we don't create most of those, anyway). Automobiles would gradually break down for lack of replacement parts. This would cripple a primary means of transporting resources across the state.

Since you assume Somalia-like anarchy within 3-5 years, do you expect automobiles and electronic devices to degrade and break down before that time-frame? I'll concede that if there is Somalia-like anarchy, then electronic devices and automobiles will end up in disrepair sooner or later.

But really I expect the majority of electronic devices and automobiles to last more than five years.

As for semi-conductor fabrication, what resources are necessary to acquire from outside Texas, which can't be acquired via alternative sources within Texas? For example, I am hoping that some Texas Instruments OMAP can be produced, to provide computing hardware for various purposes. Is there something specific which is unavailable in Texas which will prevent this?

Obviously, market demand is going to massively plummet, so we're not talking about keeping all of the production lines open at current capacity.

Beseiged on all sides, securing the borders from millions of refugees would be an impossible task. This undoubtedly would lead to a rapid militarization of the government to stop it, fulfilling the wet dreams of so many Texans.

I find it plausible for most, if not all, of the surviving countries to declare martial law (military coup optional).

Securing the borders is a possible task. WWI showed how to do it--trenches, barbed wire, and machineguns. Maybe even throw in some minefields for the heck of it. There are various reasons why we don't militarize our border today; those reasons would go out the window in this crisis.

As the national monetary system collapses, crime and looting would become rampant among the heavily armed civilian population, overwhelming the police force.

The police force wouldn't be the main security force. The main security force would be the military. Fort Hood alone represents a major military force.

I'd predict Somalia-like anarchy within 3-5 years, electricity and oil gone within 10, settling on an 16th-century agrarian economy within a few decades as the population stabilizes to a much lower level.

That's if Texas somehow magically avoids the climactic disruptions caused by a nuclear winter and is able to reliably grow it's own food. (a big if, imo)

This is one place where using Texas as an analog for another country breaks down. It's in a region most likely to be heavily impacted by nuclear winter effects. (As opposed to, say, Australia.)

[baric]

But really I expect the majority of electronic devices and automobiles to last more than five years.

Non-automotive electronic devices will fail more frequently. Most automobiles should be ok until the gasoline runs out.

Now keep in mind that I am not an energy expert. While I know that Texas has some oil capacity and refineries, I do not understand the process well enough to know if there is some crucial bottleneck that would be unavailable in TX.

As for semi-conductor fabrication, what resources are necessary to acquire from outside Texas, which can't be acquired via alternative sources within Texas?

Finding reliable silicon wafer suppliers would be difficult, but possible. The real problem is the equipment. Anything from outside TX (the majority) would have to be eventually replaced with some inside-TX equivalent. If this is even possible (highly doubtful), and we somehow managed to do assembly-test within state (also very challenging.. may not be possible), you then have to find hope that the chips you are making are what you want.

You need to understand that SC fabs are qualified to make certain types of chips and cannot magically convert to make other types without considerable retooling. It's all very specialized.

And don't forget that electronic devices use a wide variety of IC designs. Frankly, I would be very surprised if there are any more memory fabs in TX because it's not a competitive product in the US.

There are just way too many interdependencies and hurdles to overcome. It would take decades to locally recreate the infrastructure needed to run a modern SC fab.

For example, I am hoping that some Texas Instruments OMAP can be produced, to provide computing hardware for various purposes. Is there something specific which is unavailable in Texas which will prevent this?

The manufacturing equipment, imo. The wide variety of chemicals used in the processes may be a challenge as well. Our key supplier for that is a French corporation, and I'm not exactly sure what their sources are or why we chose them in the first place.

Obviously, market demand is going to massively plummet, so we're not talking about keeping all of the production lines open at current capacity.

That's ok. The "lines" will slow to a crawl since every tool is going to eventually be loaded by hand as out-of-state vendor software crashes without support. This will have a huge effect on quality as well.

I find it plausible for most, if not all, of the surviving countries to declare martial law (military coup optional).

Yeah, that's a foregone conclusion and would happen within weeks.

Securing the borders is a possible task. WWI showed how to do it--trenches, barbed wire, and machineguns. Maybe even throw in some minefields for the heck of it. There are various reasons why we don't militarize our border today; those reasons would go out the window in this crisis.

Those were military front lines. Texas is a huge state. We can't secure our border with Mexico now in good times. What makes you think we could secure ALL of our borders during a time of global crisis?

The police force wouldn't be the main security force. The main security force would be the military. Fort Hood alone represents a major military force.

Ignoring for this analogy that the force at Fort Hood would have already been nationally deployed in a US conflict, it's still not big enough. Wiki says it's 82K soldiers. I'd expect those soldiers would be used to control the major cities and let the rural areas fend for themselves.

This is one place where using Texas as an analog for another country breaks down. It's in a region most likely to be heavily impacted by nuclear winter effects. (As opposed to, say, Australia.)

Understood.

[Garrison]

Sorry but this is really getting silly; even if some catastrophe is inevitably going to overwhelm civilization here on Earth(which I don't accept) what does that have to do with the likelihood of other civilization in the galaxy surviving? Unless you are adopting the 'Star Trek' model alien species will likely be radically different from us; why assume they would share the emotional, psychological, and societal foibles of humans?

[transreality]

The point is they fell. The point is technology was lost.

In both cases the archaeological evidence is that large population centres were abandoned. The abandonment of the cities probably leads to the loss of advanced knowledge.

As to the causes, they are almost certainly specific to the civilisation in question, as they have been to many others that have fallen through history. I'd like to discuss with you why this civilisation may have fell or that one, but that be bit OT.

I'm glad you know why it was that both the Roman empire and the Mayan civilization fell and how those causes differed. After years of studying these histories, I became convinced that nobody really knew. Now, after all this time, I find you with the answers. I know quite a few people who are really interested. Could you enlighten us?

In the case of Rome, was it over expansion, bad monetary, economic, or tax policy, bad military doctrine, Christianity, social instabilities associated with slavery, lead, resource depletion, technological disadvantages, plague, something else, a combination? Then how does one explain the persistent of Byzantium (including modern day Greece and much of the Balkans, Turkey and various parts of the Near and Middle East), complete with Roman plumbing and much else, for a thousand years or so after the collapse of Rome.

By 1453, Western Europeans were well on the way to a technological civilization that came to dominate the world; although they weren’t very good at plumbing for quite a long time. Also, there are issues like archeological evidence that average nutrition improved after the collapse in many parts of the former Roman Empire. Plumbing or food?

In the case of the Mayans, was it conquest, over expansion, plague, resource depletion, religious issues, social unrest, climate change, something else, a combination? Those archaeologists who refer to it as the second biggest mystery in archaeology really would like to know.

We all have been mired in ideas of continuity, incredible complexity, confusion and ignorance about these matters.

[Bobunf]

I am a pessimist. This discussion has led to some introspection as to why, and I honestly think it's because I've worked in the SC industry for two decades where international dependencies are vital and unavoidable, and the products of our labor have ingrained themselves as vital components in so many other key industries.

I think you will find the same international dependencies in a pencil factory. This arises, not from physical necessity, but from optional issues of economic efficiency.

[baric]

Sorry but this is really getting silly; even if some catastrophe is inevitably going to overwhelm civilization here on Earth(which I don't accept) what does that have to do with the likelihood of other civilization in the galaxy surviving? Unless you are adopting the 'Star Trek' model alien species will likely be radically different from us; why assume they would share the emotional, psychological, and societal foibles of humans?

If they are a product of Darwinian evolution, they will innately be competitive for resources. If they are intelligent, then they will teach their young. If they are technological, then they must co-exist in societies.

Biologically, of course, I would expect them to be vastly different from humans. But if they are a Darwinian technological species, there will be a lot of non-biological similarities. I don't buy the argument that simply because they are biologically different automatically means that they think and organize differently.

[baric]

I think you will find the same international dependencies in a pencil factory. This arises, not from physical necessity, but from issues of economic efficiency.

Are you suggesting that modern society could not exist in its current state without pencils?

It doesn't matter why the international dependencies exist. They do.

[Bobunf]

The point is they fell. The point is technology was lost.

I think I suggested that, at least in the case of Rome (one of two civilizations you cited), the technology was not lost; it carried forth in Byzantium. I think I might also have suggested that the technology may have changed - for the better, as in average nutrition improved. The point is that, looking at the complexity of real history, collapse does not necessarily cause loss of technology. Example: the Western Roman Empire after 476 AD.

[Garrison]

If they are a product of Darwinian evolution, they will innately be competitive for resources. If they are intelligent, then they will teach their young. If they are technological, then they must co-exist in societies.

Biologically, of course, I would expect them to be vastly different from humans. But if they are a Darwinian technological species, there will be a lot of non-biological similarities. I don't buy the argument that simply because they are biologically different automatically means that they think and organize differently.

No, you seem to be arguing that all civilizations will automatically follow the same path and ultimately self destruct in manner that will prevent any further technological advancement. You clearly have a deep seated belief in some sort of inevitable doom for mankind based on your postings here and in other threads. Even if that were so stretching that belief to every intelligence that might evolve in this galaxy or beyond is more than a little far fetched.

[Bobunf]

Are you suggesting that modern society could not exist in its current state without pencils?

No.

A
It doesn't matter why the international dependencies exist.

You must realize this isn't true. Obvious examples are of mercantilist, monopoly or cartel arrangements. Arguably, the abandonment of such systems would actually increase productivity.

If the reasons are for economic efficiency, it may well be that such dependencies could be eliminated by a reduction in efficiency, e.g., an increase in price and a reduction in quality. The widespread existence of protectionism shows the popularity of anti-efficiency approaches. If South Africa or Taiwan really wanted to become self-sufficient in the production of ICs except for some dependence on a few isolated countries, and if they were willing to accept the trade-off in price and quality, I would find it pretty incredible if they could not manage it within a decade or two.

[transreality]

I think I suggested that, at least in the case of Rome (one of two civilizations you cited), the technology was not lost; it carried forth in Byzantium. I think I might also have suggested that the technology may have changed - for the better, as in average nutrition improved. The point is that, looking at the complexity of real history, collapse does not necessarily cause loss of technology.

Did Byzantium have plumbing? Poor sanitation seems to be blamed for the many plagues that swept through the city. Being in a civilisation, particularly on the way down, does not necessarily mean better nutrition on average. Feeding more people, yes, but not necessarily better quality nutrition than a tribal subsistence.

[astromark]

I am with Garrison; This has become a ATM thread. Long since abandoned the OP. Hijacked. Corrupted., and silly.

It might well be the inevitable future of humanity that anarchy will prevail and law and order will fail... Thats not a discussion for this forum.

EVIDENCE for any ET is not obvious... the ability for us to find it improves... and still not a single life form or signal of one...

How this discussion of humanities grip on controlling the masses is related to this, how ?

[ravens_cry]

The study of how discussions drift and evolve could be a worthwhile endeavour in itself, astromark.

[Jeff Root]

I work in one of the most "automated" semiconductor fabs in the
country and it easily requires over a hundred experienced engineers,
software developers and tool technicians to maintain.

I've never been in such a facility, but this is exactly what I had
in mind when I said that, with some help, I would be able to make
vacuum tubes, and maybe a crude CRT, but would not be able to
make transistors nomatter how much help I got.

Come to think of it, I have looked through the window into a
clean room in the U of M computer sciences building, but I don't
know what sorts of things they do there.

A friend who is a metalurgist for a weapons manufacturer said
to me some years ago that the 3M facility (on the eastern side
of the Twin Cities, some distance from me) would have one or
two USSR / Russian nuclear warheads targeted at it specifically
as a strategic target. I don't recall if he said the same about
his own facility or the U of M.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Bobunf]

It seems to me that there are oodles of ways out of the scenario that Baric presents: that technological civilizations are inevitably short lived.

1. Maybe they don’t collapse very often. We have the examples of human, somewhat technological, civilizations that have lasted a really long time, managed to keep it together through plague, famine and conquest, and are still going: the Chinese at about 5,000 years; the Hopi at about 7,000 years - for starters.

2. Even if they do collapse, maybe they quickly recover. We’ve been discussing that point for some time in this thread. The aboriginals of Mexico might be an example.

3. Even if our civilizations collapse and don’t recover, that doesn’t mean that the same thing happens to all ETs.

4. Even if it’s the nature of biological entities (and thus all ETs) to quickly self-destruct, that doesn’t mean some of them might not do something like set up an obituary beacon telling their story to the galaxy for many millennia – like:

Just a castaway
An island lost at sea
Another lonely day
With no one here but me
.........
I hope that someone gets my
I hope that someone gets my
Message in a bottle, yeah
Message in a bottle, yeah

The details of such of device can be worked out once we are convinced that we are doomed.

5. Even if it’s the nature of biological entities (and thus all ETs) to quickly self-destruct, that doesn’t mean some of them might not do something like make intelligent non-biological entities. We might even do something like that before the end of the century. Such entities would certainly not have the same kinds of foibles as humans, and thus might last a lot longer.

With all of these possibilities, I think it’s premature to develop complete faith that the end is nigh.

People have been doing that for just about ever.