VERY old POD

second 5 million is to recent, If there had been a HS equalivent that recent there would be evidence all around us.
I used 50 Million years ago for my Avian sapiens TL, and even at that I had the remains of their Civilazation, still exant.
Roads, Mountian cuts, Nano machines, Etc.

Actually the only parts of a civilization left after that long would be stuff they've carved into geologically stable areas and any large deposits of non-reactive metals, like gold.

Without active preservation and maintenance no parts of civilization are going to be around after 10,000 years, hell it only takes a century for roads to be destroyed in most places.


Their could have been a civilization that came close to or met our own level of advancement 30,000 years ago and we'd never know about it unless they put alot of effort into trying to preserve their history by creating stuff that would last in the long term with no maintenance.
 
BUMP. :)

I looked at several threads and decided this one was the best place to post this.

About 40 million years ago, one species of the genus Hyracotherium--ancestor of the horse--produces a super-genius who begins climbing up onto logs to escape predators. Descendants start climbing trees, and occupy a niche similar to that of lemurs.

My rationale is that early horse ancestors had multiple toes, and were fairly small, so if they started climbing trees, their descendants might have become similar to apes...

though they would end up not being "horses" at all--but that timeline's "Homo equus" would be descended from early horse relatives rather than early lemur relatives.

Feel free to tell me where it's totally wrongheaded. :):p:rolleyes::D

The problem is that early horses, like their modern descendants, were herbivores. Really, for the development of intelligence you really need to start with a carnivore. The reasons for this are that...

1) Hunting presents problems which intelligence is well suited to handling.

2) Brain development requires the consumption of lots of fat-rich food. That's why doctors generally tell young mothers to give their babies whole milk rather than skim milk until they are at least a couple of years old. There is good reason to believe that the increase in fat consumption caused by adding meat to their diets was a primary reason why the early hominids experienced brain growth.
 
The problem is that early horses, like their modern descendants, were herbivores. Really, for the development of intelligence you really need to start with a carnivore. The reasons for this are that...

1) Hunting presents problems which intelligence is well suited to handling.

Being hunted presents problems, too. :D


The problem is that early horses, like their modern descendants, were herbivores.

Okay. How difficult is it to make the transition from
herbivores-->insectivores-->eating small non-insect animals-->omnivores (which we are)?
 
Actually the only parts of a civilization left after that long would be stuff they've carved into geologically stable areas and any large deposits of non-reactive metals, like gold.

Without active preservation and maintenance no parts of civilization are going to be around after 10,000 years, hell it only takes a century for roads to be destroyed in most places.


Their could have been a civilization that came close to or met our own level of advancement 30,000 years ago and we'd never know about it unless they put alot of effort into trying to preserve their history by creating stuff that would last in the long term with no maintenance.


Easily accessible seams of coal and easily pumped supplies of oil would be in rather short supply if a previous technological civilization had reached our level of technological advancement. Not to mention various other rare metals.

Bruce
 
Easily accessible seams of coal and easily pumped supplies of oil would be in rather short supply if a previous technological civilization had reached our level of technological advancement. Not to mention various other rare metals.

Bruce

That's assuming they'd go down the same course of energy development as us, theoretically they could used biofuel for any combustion engine (which is waht cars were originally meant to run off of) and Hydropower for general energy needs early on.

The real problem is we don't have anything to compare our own development to, so we simply assume the way we did it is the natural way of things.
 
That's assuming they'd go down the same course of energy development as us, theoretically they could used biofuel for any combustion engine (which is waht cars were originally meant to run off of) and Hydropower for general energy needs early on.

Occams Razor - people are likely to do the _easy_ stuff. Please reference the bit about using biofuel for cars - I suspect the reason they didn't because it's _easier_ to use petrol if it's abundant. Similarly, a coal-powered electrical plant is easier to build than a whacking great dam and doesn't depend on there being a river in the right place. I _do_ consider the way we did it to be the natural way, because it's more convenient than the alternatives.

Now, if an earlier civilization _had_ depleted the oil and coal, I suspect our development of an industrial civilization might well indeed have involved wind, water, and biofuels - if we ever did develop one in the first place.

Bruce
 
Occams Razor - people are likely to do the _easy_ stuff. Please reference the bit about using biofuel for cars - I suspect the reason they didn't because it's _easier_ to use petrol if it's abundant. Similarly, a coal-powered electrical plant is easier to build than a whacking great dam and doesn't depend on there being a river in the right place. I _do_ consider the way we did it to be the natural way, because it's more convenient than the alternatives.
Bruce

I've always questioned Occam's razor (if only because I rarely do thing the easy way), but that's another discussion.

Anyways, their could have been some societal disapproval of using it as well, or they may simply have never thought to dig holes in the ground for fuel when they could just grow it.

As for a source, well I've never bothered looking for a site online, but they mentioned it on the History channel on a few different shows, I think it was they were originally meant to use peanut oil, and I think it was a question of price rather than abundance, which really could have gone either way since petroleum fuels were'nt really abundant in the early days of the 20th century.

As for coal plants, well like the petrol thing, their could theoretically be a societal disapproval of its use, or perhaps they just invested in other energy sources, like wind, which we've been using longer than almost any other source of energy.
 
Occams Razor - people are likely to do the _easy_ stuff. Please reference the bit about using biofuel for cars - I suspect the reason they didn't because it's _easier_ to use petrol if it's abundant. Similarly, a coal-powered electrical plant is easier to build than a whacking great dam and doesn't depend on there being a river in the right place. I _do_ consider the way we did it to be the natural way, because it's more convenient than the alternatives.

Bruce
I couldn't find reference to soy-oil powered cars, but I did find this:
http://www.soyinfocenter.com/HSS/henry_ford_and_employees.php

Henry Ford was a big promoter of Soy. I do believe that his initial intent was to power Ford cars with soy oil, but I can't quickly find evidence of that.
 
Top