0
$\begingroup$

So, humans have achieved interstellar flight and colonised a distant planet. They have terraformed this world, and now they are beginning to build their first cities.

However, a Neo-Luddite faction arises amongst the colonists which wants the colony to abandon all high tech and return to a “pure” way of life in their new garden of eden. Either by force or by swaying the younger, impressionable generation, the Luddites get their way. The cities are burnt down, all high-tech appliances are ritually destroyed, and the colonists scatter into the wilderness to live as hunter-gatherers.

But not all the colonists wanted this. So, a resistance movement uses bioengineering to give its members a set of genetic memories regarding metalworking, agriculture and other important technologies. The resistance hopes that these “Visionaries” or their descendants will one day go on to rebuild civilisation to its former level.

My question is: how effective would this be at enabling a stone-age civilisation to reach an advanced (think 1960s) level of technology, in a timespan of about 600 years?

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ -1 lack of searching this stack. We've had many questions about how long it would take to rebuild society, what knowledge would be required, how many people would be needed, etc. This question has been asked and answered many times (I don't have time to find a duplicate... there is at least one). Search "is:q rebuild technology", "is:q rebuild knowledge", and "is:q rebuild civilization". Note that 99% of humanity's tech was created in the last 150 years and the tall pole in the proverbial tent is the time required (*Continued*) $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Commented Mar 18, 2023 at 13:53
  • $\begingroup$ ... to build the factory that builds the tool that builds the next factory - aka, infrastructure. 600 years is plenty of time to do that. So, sure, it's well within the realm of suspension of disbelief. $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Commented Mar 18, 2023 at 13:54
  • $\begingroup$ Better question would be how on earth would a fraction that denies technology win in a struggle against fraction that embrace it? History has taught us many times that one with technological edge almost always triumph. And how would they sway majority to that? "Abandon the confort of modern life and live full life to the ripe old age of died at childbirth?" Do you have any idea how hard life is for a hunter-gatherers? For your idea to not be completely immersion-breaking you would need either mass mind control or mass induced insanity... $\endgroup$
    – Negdo
    Commented Mar 20, 2023 at 10:53

1 Answer 1

0
$\begingroup$

Apparently the brain, as it has evolved, stores information in a way that probably makes it hard to "program" people to inherently possess any explicit knowledge as if it was taught to them in school. Genetically imprinted understanding would rather manifest itself as more or less instinctual behavior, much like how beavers construct their dams or termites build their colonies.

While this could be enough to kick-start a technologically advanced civilization, there is a problem: such behavior tends to be hard to contain and keep completely secret. People might engage in forbidden activities without even knowing why they are doing it.

Cf how people are attracted to intoxicants in all cultures all over the globe even if they substances were illegal and the ban was strongly enforced. Even if such activities were kept hidden by instinct, it is impossibly hard to keep the authorities completely out of the picture.

How to prevent it from happening while the Neo-Luddites are in power? If they are devoted enough to their cause, they would probably spot early attempts at some point, and they would try to make it stop before it gets out of hands. What would prevent them from trying to eradicate everyone, just to be safe, who showed any propensity towards anything technological? They don't need to know where it comes from, they might just as well think that some understanding of technology still remains, and some people pose a danger to their cause.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .