Let's say the nukes flew and hit their marks or some other apocalyptic event hit the world

[DAgent]

And assuming there are survivors, just how far back would the survivors regress in terms of society, technology and so on?

Would we just get bombed back to the Stone Age, or might we just be on a more recent level like the medieval era or later?

The reason I ask, I can vaguely recall a film I saw as a kid on TV way back in the 80s, probably on a Sunday morning on UK Channel 4, staring Arthur Lowe in some sort of post-apocalyptic setting where he spent most of his time sitting inside the ruins of an old tube train (or similar) reading the newspaper while his wife went around making him breakfast while he told his daughter he was very concerned about her smoking. Suffice to say, I can't recall the name of the movie, but it did leave its mark and since no one seemed to be in any rush to repair stuff it certainly looked like society had crumbled and everyone was trying to Keep Calm And Carry On. But I have wondered just how likely it is that people would just end up acting like that, still doing the same day-to-day things out of a need for some normality when the world's gone to hell.

Likewise, for a bit more spice, let's say Earth was on a more advanced level, say any period of Star Trek, Archer, Kirk, TNG era as a whole or DISCO in the 30/31st century. Let's say the entire Sol system got bombed to ruination and no one came to help rebuild, just how far back would any of them be likely to regress to?

 

[Swank]

I think there is a tendency to view setbacks as being along historical lines - now everything is steam age, now everything is iron age. But the real result of many kinds of disasters could be really odd. Very high technology could survive in great excess of the population, so more people than ever might be able to 3D print, for instance. Also, something like a plague might favor intelligence and adherence to science - leaving an above average population. And rising to the challenge of an apocalyptic environment can spurn incredibly fast technical advancements.

Niven's Lucifer's Hammer ends with savvy people in control of a nuclear power plant. Vernor Vinge's Realtime books show peace through advanced technology and no government because of security advances.

Overall, widespread degeneration seems much less likely than a different kind of advanced society. But only after quite a bit of death.

 

[farntfar]

There are loads of different criteria that will affect this.

First of all, assume that the survivors will still be able to read and that some libraries will survive.
The survivors will have access to a large amount of the knowledge of mankind currently.

Of course this assumes that they are able to get to it, without getting eaten by radioactively warped cats, dogs, ants and cockroaches. But that's just the film makers talking.

Next, there may be buildings and even cars and stuff that will still work, at least until the petrol stations are empty. And someone will work out how to generate electricity from wind, water, anial or human labour, which will allow access to some other sources of knowledge (dvd databases etc.)
It will require that someone sensible keeps control of such things; not just little gangs squabbling and so wasting resources. So actually not much hope there then.

So I suspect we'll get to a basic early scientific level, with much that is known about, but not useable because of a lack of infrastructure.

It also depends on the survival population. But I assume that we'll go back to a largely agrarian culture without petrol driven engines. Maybe steam could be achieved fairly quickly if there's enough wood. (And if not, maybe we'll get a bit cold anyway.)

There's also the question of the expected nuclear winter, because the atmosphere is full of dust and smoke, which will affect us.

There have been so many films and books about the idea, that most of the possibilities have already been seen.

 

[Harpo]

Give up and let the scorpions and cockroaches become the next dominant types over several million years.

And someday, Dr Roachtick will discover a thin layer of plastic in the fossil record, and that’s our legacy.

 

[Harpo]

And that film mentioned in the first post is this 1969 classic

The Bed Sitting Room (film) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

A thread about it

The Bed Sitting Room (1969)

The Bed Sitting Room hit the theaters in 1969 , based on a play of the same name, It's post apocalyptic film and is by far one the most insane , inane, bizarre and incompressible films ive ever seen. The first time I saw it, I had absolutely no idea what it was about and yet this didn't...

www.sffchronicles.com

 

[Harpo]

And that film mentioned in the first post is this 1969 classic

The Bed Sitting Room (film) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Biskit]

It's going to depend a lot on what is hit, but I wouldn't be optimistic.

First off, look at what COVID lockdown did to the UK supply chain. Toilet roll, anyone?

Bread flour was almost impossible to get hold of, not because it didn't exist, but because the supply chain was designed to primarily supply commercial users with 15kg sacks. (We're still buying our flour in big sacks.)

If the supply chain failed because the roads were unusable, or there was no fuel, the shops would be empty of food within a day or two. (If you go to Co-op in town just before the daily delivery, the shelves have noticeable gaps.)

Out here in the sticks, food might last longer because this is where it's grown, but according to national stats, the UK imports more than 40% of its food, so there's going to be a bit of a supply problem. Also, around here, you would need to get used to eating mutton, beef, pork, maize and miscanthus, because that's mostly what gets grown up here. I'm not sure about the nutritional value of miscanthus, but it's probably not an issue because that's more grown down towards Wadebrige and without car that's a long walk.

Right, now we're ready to try to hold society together, with no food**, no toilet roll and marauding bands of teenagers desperate for a signal on their smartphones.

Following on from @Harpo, tonight's menu will be the scorpion salad with cockroach topping.

I have a selection of science and engineering text books if someone needs to light a fire**.


** In the short term, there will be a supply of roasted neighbours, casualties of the fight over the last toilet roll, and cooked over a slow-burning graduate maths text.

 

[BAYLOR]

Then there No Blade of Grass by John Christopher in which a disease wipes Wheat and causes global famine which causes all the civilized norms to disappear very quickly in name of survival .

 

[paranoid marvin]

We've seen civilisation almost disintegrate over a lack of toilet rolls - we no longer live in a resilient society.

Most people are unable to safely prepare and cook food, make/mend clothes or do anything useful in a scenario that lacks electricity.

Look at something as simple as a pen or pencil - how much time and effort has gone into a process whereby an item that may have been partly made in several areas of the world can be purchased for a few pence. Now imagune having to make a pen or pencil yourself - just how long it would take. Likely you wouldn't even bother trying.

The likelihood is that we would return to a feudal society, where the person with the most muscle will gather people and tell them what to do.

We are fortunate that there is likely to be a buffer between 'now' and 'later'. A lot of tools would probably still be around, allowing time to learn to repair them and make more - same with clothing. A lot of tinned foodstuffs, grain/wheat/corn, allowing time to learn to grow new.

But as I mentioned above, we are a lot less resilient and much more reliant on society feeding, clothing and generally looking after us - so we no longer have to. Take away that support and a lack of resilience would likely make many people give up. A completely different situstion to a 100 or even 50 years ago.

 

[Swank]

We've seen civilisation almost disintegrate over a lack of toilet rolls - we no longer live in a resilient society.

Most people are unable to safely prepare and cook food, make/mend clothes or do anything useful in a scenario that lacks electricity.

Look at something as simple as a pen or pencil - how much time and effort has gone into a process whereby an item that may have been partly made in several areas of the world can be purchased for a few pence. Now imagune having to make a pen or pencil yourself - just how long it would take. Likely you wouldn't even bother trying.

The likelihood is that we would return to a feudal society, where the person with the most muscle will gather people and tell them what to do.

We are fortunate that there is likely to be a buffer between 'now' and 'later'. A lot of tools would probably still be around, allowing time to learn to repair them and make more - same with clothing. A lot of tinned foodstuffs, grain/wheat/corn, allowing time to learn to grow new.

But as I mentioned above, we are a lot less resilient and much more reliant on society feeding, clothing and generally looking after us - so we no longer have to. Take away that support and a lack of resilience would likely make many people give up. A completely different situstion to a 100 or even 50 years ago.

Why would you lose manufacturing or whatever, yet still have a large population?

If there is a drastic reduction in population, then the amount of spare clothes and ballpoint pens become more than enough to go around.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

Diesel engines are very reliable, simple, last a long time and are easy to find fuel from all kinds of natural sources. Solar cells would also be easily salvageable. Those could supply power without reinventing the wheel. Sailing ships and boats once powered the world, they could make a big comeback. So could wind power. People could follow the rivers. For societies that don't have a lot to start with, the downward shift might not be as noticeable compared to the people who have everything delivered to them in a finished format, things would probably get very tough, very fast for them. Knowledge would definitely make a difference. Food would definitely be a big problem. It could possibly start a relocation back to rural areas where the food is grown. Hard to tell which would be better or worse, large roaming groups or many smaller groups wandering about. There would be plenty of weapons laying around to start with.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Why would you lose manufacturing or whatever, yet still have a large population?

If there is a drastic reduction in population, then the amount of spare clothes and ballpoint pens become more than enough to go around.

Yes it woukd be enough for one generation; possibly two. By then, things from before 'the event' will break or run out.

This is the 'buffer zone' I mention, where you have matches, gas lighters, canned food, tools which can be used for agricultural purposes or for manufacturing.

But then things will start to break down, run out. That is the difference between the earlier ages and now. We still have the knowledge in books and in some people's minds. What happens in those two generations will likely define the next twenty.

 

[psikeyhackr]

It is so annoying and difficult to analytically imagine. Suppose it only killed 50,000,000 Americans. Out of 340,000,000 that might not seem too bad. But wouldn't that take out the electrical power grid for the entire country?

How many "knowledgeable" people will be gone? I asked a PhD economist to explain how an automobile engine worked. He couldn't even start. How many people will die fighting over food in the aftermath?
.

 

[Biskit]

But as I mentioned above, we are a lot less resilient and much more reliant on society feeding, clothing and generally looking after us - so we no longer have to. Take away that support and a lack of resilience would likely make many people give up. A completely different situstion to a 100 or even 50 years ago.

For societies that don't have a lot to start with, the downward shift might not be as noticeable compared to the people who have everything delivered to them in a finished format, things would probably get very tough, very fast for them.

50 years ago I was an undergraduate studying chemistry and physics, brought up on a mindset of fixing things when they were broken and surrounded by people who knew how to fix the broken machinery. 49 years ago, I was a postgraduate student... here's your equipment, it doesn't work, fix it. (Or, in some cases, build it from scratch.) Given the manuals, the tools and the parts, I could do that.

100 years ago, my maternal grandfather was 13. 99 years ago, he started as a mechanical apprentice at the local garage. When my parents bought their first house (60+years ago) and needed a spare door key, my grandfather got out his files and a suitable piece of metal and made them one. Not only did my grandfather know how to fix things, he knew how to make the necessary parts.

Today, repair means either throw it away and buy a new one, or removed the controller cards one by one and replace them until it starts working. Paraphrasing what @Robert Zwilling said, those parts of the world with the skills and technology of 50-100 years ago will fare a lot better than the Amazon generation.**

** Which I have joined. Fixing things has become almost impossible. Just buying the components to fix things is an uphill struggle.

 

[Vladd67]

Yes it woukd be enough for one generation; possibly two. By then, things from before 'the event' will break or run out.

This is the 'buffer zone' I mention, where you have matches, gas lighters, canned food, tools which can be used for agricultural purposes or for manufacturing.

But then things will start to break down, run out. That is the difference between the earlier ages and now. We still have the knowledge in books and in some people's minds. What happens in those two generations will likely define the next twenty.

Listening to a radio broadcast of the sequel of Day of the Triffids a character was complaining nobody was making anything new, everything was repaired and recycled but nobody was mining iron ore to make new iron etc. Everything was just old stuff patched up.

 

[Toby Frost]

Day of the Triffids has some interesting ideas on this. Someone says that it's not enough to have a bunch of armed survivalists: to have a real society you need people like scientists and teachers, whose work doesn't have an obvious and immediately visible result. So, you need the structure to keep such people alive and working - not just the circumstances, but the willingness to let them do an "egghead" job. Otherwise, as a character points out, you get a generation of farmers followed by a generation of savages.

 

[SilentRoamer]

I like George R Stewarts answer to this in the Earth Abides. The main character "Ish" has these great goals of restarting society and civilization, only for events and the world to overtake him. In the end he's just a senile old man with memories of what was and what may yet to be.

 

[paranoid marvin]

The 1970s tv swries 'Survivors' had a very realistic portrayl of the aftermath of a global pandemic. All official command and control is gone, and people have to form communities. The problem is that since the 1980s, we have been effectively destroying communities, instead asopting an every-man-for-himself. Wbich kind of works when there are established services you can go to when in trouble, but not when thet've been taken away.


I suppose it also makes a big difference as to what the catastrophe is. If it leaves most of the infrastructure in place or if everything has been destroyed. In the case of the latter it's almost pre-Stone Age. For the former, medieval feudal system.

 

[Swank]

Why would the feudal system come back? It was underpinned by a unified religion, belief in nobility and an agrarian taxation system. Unlike in 800 AD, it is nearly impossible to subdue and occupy a modern population by military force.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I din't think it's a case of occupation - quite the opposite. The first thing to go after a catastrophic event will be law and order. People will rob and murder you for what you have, and there will be no state to protect you.

The feudal system gives you land, makes you part of an organised community, and most of all gives you protection. People won't need to be subdued; they'll accept the offer of food and protection willingly.

Part of the reason for the end of the feudal system was that peasants could earn money and become wealthy enough to own their own land and cattle. Not only to feed themselves and their family, but to make more money to buy more land. Suddenly you don't need to be subservient to a local governor/overlord/thug/bully.

Of course, there will be those independant, self reliant people who refuse to have anything to do with it. But they will likely be prey for roving bands of outlaws.