New answers tagged

0

Have you ever asked a person who has recovered from a depression, how they felt about the idea of suicide? Quite likely, the answer would be twofold: They will report that they frequently had a strong desire not to wake up the next morning, but they will be happy that they didn't kill themselves after they did recover! Now, roughly every eighth person has ...


0

In a truly Free society no one should be allowed to decide what another person does with their own life no matter how much you disagree with the choices they make even if that includes taking drugs or wanting to commit suicide or having sex just to abort one fetus after another. Why is it some people want to control how others live pretty sure this goes ...


0

Even if the question is marked as answered I think that the main point is missing. The world population boomed when the use of tools and eventually the industry multiplied the capacity to transport and produce food and goods beyond what is possible with human and animal muscles. To transport and produce people need energy and if the weight is stronger people ...


0

Even if the density of that planet is smaller than that of Earth, so that the surface gravity is the same, the gravitational well is deeper. This means space travel is much more difficult. Crewed spaceflight possibly would not be achieved at this technological level and the number of automatic satellites is much smaller. Putting just a tiny can in the orbit ...


2

I would imagine a slower pace in the beginning but later it would catch up very quickly and then exceed our current earth by far. In the initial stone age, more available land to keep surviving with a hunter / gatherer lifestyle means less incentive to develop agriculture. Later as agriculture is discovered, more available land means longer time until ...


1

I always wonder why people ended up in Australia 50,000 years ago, when the world was almost empty. If Australia had been 5.8 times further away from the cradle in North Africa I'm sure humankind would have ended up there all the same. Not because scarcity dictated it but because they could. Sedentarism was not driven by the first agriculturers being ...


2

It depends. Remember that most (all?) historical civilizations developed within fairly limited areas: the Nile Valley, the area around Greece & later Rome, the eastern coast of China, &c. So they could perhaps happily develop their own civilizations on a larger planet, ignoring the rest of the world - as for all practical purposes most historical ...


0

A lot depends on how you want to define progress. Most answers seem to assume it is driven by population. But actually a lot of tech is driven by war. In realistic terms conflict would take a lot longer to arise as humans populate the Earth before being dense enough to get into real conflict. Personally I think it's quite possible we may go extinct at one ...


7

One big aspect to a bigger world is stronger gravity. (For the long version: Go read "Dragon's Egg" and "StarQuake" by Robert L Forward. The gravity there is 67 billion times stronger than Earth's, but I think you'd find some of the ideas relevant.) Biology Flying birds? Insects? Possibly not. Jumpers (fleas, grasshoppers, frogs)? The impact at the ...


8

Civilization is the inevitable result of agriculture: people needed to band together in a fixed location to protect their crops before and after harvest, and they need written records to track who owns what. This happened on our Earth about ten thousand years ago in three places roughly simultaneously: Central America (corn), the Middle East (wheat) and the ...


3

Humankind would spread more slowly, more human species could share same epoch and even the Homo Sapiens could split in two ou more different species. In some point after all those different civilizations would make contact one each other and cause wars, genocidies, and all sort of shameful things, in a process would take thousands of years instead the few ...


13

Yes and no, and possibly "it depends on what you mean by "civilization". As L. Dutch already noted, technological development is more a function of available resources and population density. On the one hand, it's quite believable that population density could increase at least as quickly as on our Earth, and indeed, perhaps faster given how much more ...


2

The speed of movement would depend only the means of movement. Larger territories would require more time to be crossed, but won't make travel happen at a slower velocity. It is true that longer time to travel would be a minus, but as a plus you would have more available resources and more space to expand small civilization. Don't forget that available ...


Top 50 recent answers are included