That’s a paper I’d like to see someone do at some point: given the scaling information about human-level brains in the very interesting recent paper “The remarkable, yet not extraordinary, human brain as a scaled-up primate brain and its associated cost”, Herculano-Houzel 2012 (quotes from it are in my essay linked in OP), and something like OP and my African points, estimate how close to the break-even point we are: how few calories/day of brain consumption are we away from being able to support civilization development on any timescale at all?
Given that the neolithic revolution happened in more than one place, I don’t see how it could be a very significant filter. Or are you referring to “civilization” in a sense not achieved by the Incans or the Aztecs? It’s interesting to wonder how far the Aztecs & subsequent civilizations could’ve gone if they hadn’t been interrupted by the Europeans.
The Aztecs were an interesting society. I wonder how much of their gratuitous sacrifices were politically calculated to keep the city states in line, and how much was due to their genuine and profound existential anxiety (“we owe the Gods for their continued sacrifice to keep the world alive—so we better keep sacrificing to them or the sun may not come up tomorrow!”)
I don’t think Aztecs are a good candidate for an alternative history civ, they feel to me like a failure mode. Incas make more sense (they also had potatoes, quinoa, llamas, etc.)
Both Judaism and Hinduism also started out as cosmic maintenance religions, so that might be a stage that civilizations need to pass rather than a specific failure mode of only one of them.
That just means that the right conditions were a worldwide (or close to worldwide) phenomenon on Earth. This does not imply that the right conditions for the development of civilisation are necessarily common given the right conditions for the formation of intelligent life.
Unfortunately, we only have one example of a planet having the right conditions for the formation of intelligent life. Drawing statistical inferences from a single example is not a good idea.
Given that the neolithic revolution happened in more than one place, I don’t see how it could be a very significant filter.
But it probably wouldn’t have happened anywhere if there wasn’t an interglacial period. My point is that intelligent life is unlikely to develop a technological civilization unless the planet they’re on allows them to achieve very high population densities (e.g. by artificially growing more food than otherwise available), which ISTM that Earth before the interglacial period didn’t.
Or are you referring to “civilization” in a sense not achieved by the Incans or the Aztecs?
Yep. As I implied elsewhere, I think that the step between intelligence and civilization is an important though overlooked one in the Great Filter.
That’s a paper I’d like to see someone do at some point: given the scaling information about human-level brains in the very interesting recent paper “The remarkable, yet not extraordinary, human brain as a scaled-up primate brain and its associated cost”, Herculano-Houzel 2012 (quotes from it are in my essay linked in OP), and something like OP and my African points, estimate how close to the break-even point we are: how few calories/day of brain consumption are we away from being able to support civilization development on any timescale at all?
Given that the neolithic revolution happened in more than one place, I don’t see how it could be a very significant filter. Or are you referring to “civilization” in a sense not achieved by the Incans or the Aztecs? It’s interesting to wonder how far the Aztecs & subsequent civilizations could’ve gone if they hadn’t been interrupted by the Europeans.
The Aztecs were an interesting society. I wonder how much of their gratuitous sacrifices were politically calculated to keep the city states in line, and how much was due to their genuine and profound existential anxiety (“we owe the Gods for their continued sacrifice to keep the world alive—so we better keep sacrificing to them or the sun may not come up tomorrow!”)
I don’t think Aztecs are a good candidate for an alternative history civ, they feel to me like a failure mode. Incas make more sense (they also had potatoes, quinoa, llamas, etc.)
Both Judaism and Hinduism also started out as cosmic maintenance religions, so that might be a stage that civilizations need to pass rather than a specific failure mode of only one of them.
That just means that the right conditions were a worldwide (or close to worldwide) phenomenon on Earth. This does not imply that the right conditions for the development of civilisation are necessarily common given the right conditions for the formation of intelligent life.
Unfortunately, we only have one example of a planet having the right conditions for the formation of intelligent life. Drawing statistical inferences from a single example is not a good idea.
But it probably wouldn’t have happened anywhere if there wasn’t an interglacial period. My point is that intelligent life is unlikely to develop a technological civilization unless the planet they’re on allows them to achieve very high population densities (e.g. by artificially growing more food than otherwise available), which ISTM that Earth before the interglacial period didn’t.
From what I read on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec#Economy they definitely do count as a civilization by my standards.