Planes and Guns

Epic Meepo · November 08, 2007, 02:23:53 PM

Quote from: Mithridates
Quote from: Epic MeepoBut theory tells us that, down the line, lab-grown hearts have the potential to be better for patients and cheaper to produce than mechanical valves used in place of hearts. Does this mean that we should abandon research into lab-grown organic hearts, with their pay-off for generations down the line, just because mechanical valves provide an immediate benefit to our generation?

We possess the technology to grow organs out of the body - or at least, a few scientists do. It is natural for people to see an existing technology and wonder how it could be improved. It's reasonable to think "hey, a real heart could do that even better, what's say we grow one chaps?"

But this assumes a basic level of biological knowledge where "let's grow a real heart" seems reasonable, and achievable at some future point. Without this basic level of understanding, it's never an issue.

Why did it take so long for people to go from the bow and arrow to the musket? It's not as if people weren't trying to think up new ways of throwing things at each other - the huge proliferation of various bows, crossbows, siege devices, and so on are all testaments to man's willingness to re-invent the science of throwing things to hurt somebody better. I imagine that no one area of knowledge has received more attention in human history than ranged weaponry. It took a basic level of alchemical/physical knowledge, however, before people thought "hey - what about using gunpowder?" Certainly early natural philosophers and alchemists hadn't been working for centuries on a gun; they didn't know what that was. It was inconceivable to them, just like guns were inconceivable to native Americans who first encountered them. I mean, come on, firesticks?

In the same way, the knowledge base has to exist before people think "let's make a powered flying machine that shoots bullets" or "let's grow a heart for this guy." You have to be at the point where growing a heart or flying in a heap of metal seems possible, even if it only seems possible in the distant future.

Once people knew about gunpowder and could visualize how it could be used, it didn't take long for the first crude guns to appear, even though early ones were pretty inferior to bows and siege engines of the time. They could see that this technology had promise in the long run. Other technologies didn't; Archimedes invented the steam cannon, but it wasn't really practical and nobody saw any promise in it. Either way, however, that threshold has to be reached first.

When you are in the medieval age with only the most crude understanding of how steel is formed, are you really capable of imagining a Mustang and working towards it? Probably not - and just like with gunpowder, you'll keep working on that better bow or better crossbow until the knowledge base is such that a cannon is conceivable. In the case of the Mustang, this will probably be once things like combustion engines and aluminum processing come around - suddenly, it occurs to the dragon-riding people of the world that you could do something interesting with this stuff, even if it's not better than a dragon... yet. Such a visualization in the age of knights, however, strains believability, lacking some divine inspiration or something. Maybe your deity came down and said "Lo, here are the sacred blueprints; retreat to an island, study the arts of metalworking and alchemy, and verily, one day your children shall be awesome."

Epic Meepo · November 08, 2007, 02:24:10 PM

Quote from: Strgt55
Quote from: Epic MeepoThe first computer ever built was the first in a long line of electronic devices built to make calculations. And the first electronic device built to make calculations was less efficient than existing non-electronic devices that made calculations. By the logic cited in precious posts opposing my viewpoint, no one should ever have built the first electronic calculating device.
You're being too specific. It was the first electronic device in that line, but certainly not the first in its own line. Before that you had analog addition machines, the aformentioned abacus, slide rules, etc.

beejazz · November 08, 2007, 02:44:16 PM

Woah... lotsa stuff.

I've got so say, that in general I like the mixing of tech and magic.

I sort of agree that tech shouldn't be so ridiculously out of step as renaissance (or before) and WWII (or after). Now, Victorian alongside WWI maybe. Or WWI alongside early WWII maybe. The only justification I can see for more than 50 years disparity is total isolation of one society from another (such as when Europe came to the Americas) or a dearth of metal in a given location.

Epic Meepo · November 08, 2007, 02:51:47 PM

Quote from: beejazzThe only justification I can see for more than 50 years disparity is total isolation of one society from another (such as when Europe came to the Americas) or a dearth of metal in a given location.

I agree, and I'll have to go back and add clarification to the OP. The one advanced society was described as being so isolated that no outsider even knows the location its homeland. So, presumably, there wasn't much interaction between different societies until this one culture's aircraft came along.

Jharviss · November 08, 2007, 03:04:22 PM

Though guns and airplanes are scary, my biggest concern would actually be the navy. In a world where navy matters (as in, not all countries are land-locked next to each other), having a couple WWII battleships next to rennaisance or medieval warships would be devestating. A single WWII battleship could probably take out the entirety of Napoleon's navy.

Then, hey, let's throw in submarines!

Gwaihir Windlord · November 08, 2007, 03:19:53 PM

Ok, first off cannons do exist. Gunpowder weapons are very prevalent, and catapults and trebuchets are not used as much because of cannons. There are muskets, but they are crude and bows are more effective and cheaper. For that reason, they generally aren't used, although non-Guild scientists are continuing to improve upon them.

The Guild is so much more advance because they are all much smarter. Hundreds of years ago, lighter-than-air travel was developed and was quite prevalent. Heavier-than-air travel, however, had not progressed beyond Wright fliers because there was no need for them to. The original Guild members, however, saw enormous potential in heavier-than-air travel, but because no one else had yet seen that potential they also say enormous potential for profit. Everyone who believed in the potential power of heavier-than-air travel got on a blimp and headed out to an island where they would attempt to develop it. Only genius visionaries were on that blimp. As plane became more and more sophisticated, the Guild members realized that they would need something to power it. Crude oil reserves had been found on the island already, and while the internal combustion engine had not yet been developed the oil was already being used to power things. Soon the engine was invented, and eventually it was miniaturized enough to put into a plane.

The internal combustion engine is in use all over the world. Zeppelins and build by the Republic and the United Islands as well as the Guild, but the Guild controls all of the crude oil yet discovered. By now the Guild has so much money that whenever someone find more, the Guild will simply buy it. Six million gold now is a lot more appealing then 10 million 30 years from now.

Gwaihir Windlord · November 08, 2007, 03:21:21 PM

Quote from: JharvissThough guns and airplanes are scary, my biggest concern would actually be the navy. In a world where navy matters (as in, not all countries are land-locked next to each other), having a couple WWII battleships next to rennaisance or medieval warships would be devestating. A single WWII battleship could probably take out the entirety of Napoleon's navy.

Then, hey, let's throw in submarines!

No monster battleships. Naval technology is Napoleonic. Naval travel isn't cost-effective because of all the monsters in the ocean. That's why air travel developed as fast as it did.

Epic Meepo · November 08, 2007, 03:32:37 PM

Quote from: MithridatesOnce people knew about gunpowder and could visualize how it could be used, it didn't take long for the first crude guns to appear, even though early ones were pretty inferior to bows and siege engines of the time. They could see that this technology had promise in the long run.

When you are in the medieval age with only the most crude understanding of how steel is formed, are you really capable of imagining a Mustang and working towards it?[/quote]A Mustang in particular? Probably not. But the idea of a flying machine that could prove exceedingly useful? Certainly. Recall that Da Vinci drew crude blueprints for both helicopters and submarines. Presumably, he wasn't sketching them for aesthetic reasons, but because he thought such things, once properly developed, might be useful.

The fact that no one worked on helicopters and submarines as a result of Da Vinci's vision was entirely a result of Da Vinci not being born into a position of authority. Had he been born a king, it is entirely conceivable that he might have assigned engineers to the task of developing flying machines, to impress visitors to his court with novel toys, if nothing else. And if he achieved even modest results, it is entirely conceivable that the research would have continued unabated.

Then, there's also the fact that history is full of discoveries that lost forgotten before they could be put to better use. Just based on documentaries I've seen on television, I can list a handful of "modern" inventions that existed before the birth of Christ: hang gliders (built by certain American Indians of the Southwest); ships capable of trans-Atlantic journeys (built by Egyptians); the basic principals of calculus, upon which all of modern physics depends (in a recently unearthed manuscript penned by Archimedes); seismographs (built by the Chinese and used to track the movements of enemy sappers).

And since the ancient Greeks conceived of the ideas of sub-atomic particles, it's not even beyond the imagination to conceive of an ancient alchemist accidentally discovering the electrical properties of certain chemicals, thereby leading to an early discovery of crude electronic circuits. To say nothing of theories of a technologically advanced Atlantis.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that technological leaps and bounds need not follow the progression that they did in real world history. It's entirely conceivable to imagine a world in which something was discovered much earlier than it was in the real world, entirely by accident. So why not have one culture that happens to have vastly advanced technology?

What if, for example, European monarchs considered complex technological gadgets to be greater economic drivers and status symbols than coffers full of gold? Instead of immediately colonizing the New World, they might have invested in engineering, arriving in force in the New World only after developing aircraft. A situation not unlike that in Gwaihir's world.

Eclipse · November 09, 2007, 12:38:34 PM

Quote from: Gwaihir Windlord
Quote from: JharvissThough guns and airplanes are scary, my biggest concern would actually be the navy. In a world where navy matters (as in, not all countries are land-locked next to each other), having a couple WWII battleships next to rennaisance or medieval warships would be devestating. A single WWII battleship could probably take out the entirety of Napoleon's navy.

Then, hey, let's throw in submarines!

No monster battleships. Naval technology is Napoleonic. Naval travel isn't cost-effective because of all the monsters in the ocean. That's why air travel developed as fast as it did.

I like this element, for two reasons.

1) Balance. A single ironclad during the Civil War was almost indestructable. Put a WWII battleship? It'd be the god of the ocean.
2) It makes the development of air travel that much more realistic. There would have to be a way to transport goods over long distances, and without safe water transport, air would be the next best thing.

Wensleydale · November 09, 2007, 03:22:05 PM

I think the WW2 thing is going a bit far, personally. I can conceive, however, slightly MORE developed versions of the Wright Flier, or working Da Vinci flying machines. Development of a crude combustion engine is not TOO out, and I can see that advancing. But you'd need a VERY politically powerful group of engineers to keep it a secret. You'd have to keep all your workers locked away, all your blueprints in the most fearful security, and make your aircraft repairable only by members of the guild (which in turn would increase political influence).

Gwaihir Windlord · November 09, 2007, 04:08:37 PM

Not at all. The Guild has a total monopoly on oil. Anyone can make a plane, but the Guild is the only group that has fuel.

Wensleydale · November 09, 2007, 04:49:52 PM

Quote from: Gwaihir WindlordNot at all. The Guild has a total monopoly on oil. Anyone can make a plane, but the Guild is the only group that has fuel.

Well, we can all go back to the argument again.

If flight magic exists, why would people want planes in the first place?

Gwaihir Windlord · November 09, 2007, 06:39:48 PM

Because a plane can get you from one place to another faster. While flight is already a possibility though magic, a plane is far more efficient. You can carry more stuff in a plane, and go faster.

Just like cars and trains were invented. We can already walk and run, why invent a car? Because the car can get you somewhere faster than walking, and it can carry more stuff than you could on your own.

Wensleydale · November 09, 2007, 06:41:41 PM

Quote from: Gwaihir WindlordBecause a plane can get you from one place to another faster. While flight is already a possibility though magic, a plane is far more efficient. You can carry more stuff in a plane, and go faster.

Just like cars and trains were invented. We can already walk and run, why invent a car? Because the car can get you somewhere faster than walking, and it can carry more stuff than you could on your own.

That can be solved rather easily with a bag of holding. I bet you I could fit more in a bag of holding than you can in a one-seater monoplane. Heck, you can CARRY more. And I think fly can actually take you up to pretty high speeds, although I may be wrong.

Anyway, why not just teleport, then? :P

Polycarp · November 09, 2007, 06:52:14 PM

Quote from: Epic MeepoAs I understand it, the Chinese had gunpowder hundreds of years before the Europeans, and though they created crude rockets used to signal or intimidate troops, they never created guns. Just having the basic ingredients of an invention does not guarantee the imagination necessary to create it; sometimes, a culture just gets lucky and has the right inspiration to propel its technology forward while other cultures fail to make the leap.

A Mustang in particular? Probably not. But the idea of a flying machine that could prove exceedingly useful? Certainly. Recall that Da Vinci drew crude blueprints for both helicopters and submarines. Presumably, he wasn't sketching them for aesthetic reasons, but because he thought such things, once properly developed, might be useful.[/quote]concept[/i] of a chariot that moved itself.

You will also observe that Da Vinci's flights of fancy led nowhere; without the basic level of technology, such "invention" remains laughable. Both the need and the basic technology is required, and neither existed in Da Vinci's time. Ironically, it is exactly for this reason in part that he is thought of as a visionary; he conceived of things that were neither feasible nor useful, but were rough analogues to modern devices such that, though operating on entirely different principles, they seemed prophetic.

QuoteThe fact that no one worked on helicopters and submarines as a result of Da Vinci's vision was entirely a result of Da Vinci not being born into a position of authority. Had he been born a king, it is entirely conceivable that he might have assigned engineers to the task of developing flying machines, to impress visitors to his court with novel toys, if nothing else. And if he achieved even modest results, it is entirely conceivable that the research would have continued unabated.

And since the ancient Greeks conceived of the ideas of sub-atomic particles, it's not even beyond the imagination to conceive of an ancient alchemist accidentally discovering the electrical properties of certain chemicals, thereby leading to an early discovery of crude electronic circuits. To say nothing of theories of a technologically advanced Atlantis.[/quote]use[/i] this information - microscopes, spectrometers, and so on - it remains speculation. Again, the theory itself accomplishes nothing without the neccessary technological base.

QuoteI guess what I'm trying to say is that technological leaps and bounds need not follow the progression that they did in real world history. It's entirely conceivable to imagine a world in which something was discovered much earlier than it was in the real world, entirely by accident.

who[/i] invented the first phone, or hot air balloon, or airplane - people like the Wright brothers were products of their time.

I am a huge fan of the game "Civilization" and all its successors, but they are all fundamentally flawed - no leader things to himself, "I shall endeavor to invent writing," or iron working, or rocketry. The capacity to understand technology as a big flowchart, continually advancing from pottery and the wheel to nuclear physics and cloning, is an exclusively modern conceit. That conceit was also developed, as dearly as any invention, as a result of thousands of years of intellectual and philosophical revolutions. In many ways these are inextricably linked to the physical - gunpowder and the printing press changed not just how we fought and made books, but how we thought. The "nation-state" and the notion of territorial sovereignty would have been impractical and preposterous to a medieval baron; feudalism worked far better for him in an age where borders were fluid, labor was unskilled, and the discourse of rights was nonexistent.

The point is that these things - from cannons to Communism, printing presses to "progress," paper, and P-51s - are not individual nodules of knowledge that can be plucked at will and thrown into a gift basket of historical "what ifs" scenarios. They all depend on each other. Technology and thought build together; they have their own prerequisites of knowledge, science, and necessity. Saying "what if medieval people had the technology to have P-51s" is no more or less preposterous than saying "what if Neanderthals had postmodernism and dialectical materialism." If medieval people had modern technology, they would be modern, not medieval. Everything is a product of its time, place, and neighbors, and removing it from that place renders it meaningless. It takes fundamentally and wholly different explanations - like "these people just have a +4 intelligence mod" - to justify such juxtaposition of the flow of historical thought and technology.

QuoteWhat if, for example, European monarchs considered complex technological gadgets to be greater economic drivers and status symbols than coffers full of gold? Instead of immediately colonizing the New World, they might have invested in engineering, arriving in force in the New World only after developing aircraft. A situation not unlike that in Gwaihir's world.

they never do[/i]. What would a monarch have to gain from "investing in engineering?" What would "investing in engineering" even mean to a monarch who lived before the term "engineering" meant anything? Before there were any "engineers?" You're injecting a highly modern conception of progress, research, development, and science into a society that had no such conceptions. It's not as if medieval monarchs were any more short-sighted or greedy than modern politicians, or that medieval intellectuals were any stupider. "Complex technological gadgets" enable and are enabled by social and political developments; a medieval world without medieval technology simply isn't medieval anymore.

As with the Amazonia example, it's certainly plausible for one continent to be far more advanced than another - but this is accomplished through prolonged isolation, and says nothing about "uneven" development. It's simply not plausible to have a society that fights in the air with P-51s and on the ground with muskets barring some extreme deus ex machina like divine gifts or magic, or some highly unusual or supernatural paradigm shift.

The Campaign Builder's Guild

News:

Planes and Guns

Epic Meepo

Epic Meepo

beejazz

Epic Meepo

Jharviss

Gwaihir Windlord

Gwaihir Windlord

Epic Meepo

Eclipse

Wensleydale

Gwaihir Windlord

Wensleydale

Gwaihir Windlord

Wensleydale

Polycarp