Alternate Universe: No Industry, No Guns

[nexus]

What would the world look like today if (assume some handwavium reason) there were no fossil fuels (Oil, gas, coal, etc) and gunpowder simply didn't work/exist?

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Alternate Universe: No Industry, No Guns

 

What would the world look like today if (assume some handwavium reason) there were no fossil fuels (Oil' date=' gas, coal, etc) and gunpowder simply didn't work/exist?[/quote']

 

Relatively inefficient steam power (due to lower energy present in wood as opposed to fossil fuels). Probably more efficient use of the heat from the steam exhaust as compared to historic steam power though.

 

Probably very high pressure steam could be used to throw projectiles longer distances than counterweights, but without good explosives or incendiaries, it might not be worthwhile to do anything with. Unless bio-warfare or chemical agents advance enough to make a long distance delivery system a good idea.

[Comic]

Re: Alternate Universe: No Industry, No Guns

 

Fossil fuels are also the source of plastics and other materials.

 

Coal provides the original basis for producing steel; without coke from coal, it's unlikely there would be much access to metals more advanced than cast iron and wrought iron. Aluminum and like metals require a lot of electricity to produce, and with so much less available, it's probable most people would be familiar with iron, copper, tin, zinc, silver and gold (in about that order), at all.

 

Glass, likewise, requires fire to produce, and so there'd likely be a lot less of that, too.

 

OTOH, it's possible that other technologies might have arisen in place of the fossil-based ones; wind, solar, hydro, biomass, nuclear, geothermal, tidal can be tapped to produce a respectable amount of energy, on the same order of magnitude as fossil, and with much less overall health, environmental effect for most of them -- unless you count peat and dung burning.

 

With a more conservation-oriented approach to using energy, it's likely more sophisticated uses would have evolved; cell phones and laptop computers with flat screen displays in place of steam ships and automobiles.

 

Fuel cells, batteries and flywheels would dominate as energy storage, except biomass and hydrogen for internal combustion where it would be used.

 

Oh.. and asphalt (blacktop) is a fossil fuel byproduct. At 83% carbon by weight, almost all of it in a volatile chemical form, I'd certainly count it as a fuel even though it evaporates into the atmosphere instead of being burned... So we'd be looking at dirt, concrete, cobble or other surfaces for roads.

 

With roads like those, think horses and vertical lift aircraft.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Alternate Universe: No Industry, No Guns

 

Fossil fuels are also the source of plastics and other materials.

 

Coal provides the original basis for producing steel; without coke from coal, it's unlikely there would be much access to metals more advanced than cast iron and wrought iron. Aluminum and like metals require a lot of electricity to produce, and with so much less available, it's probable most people would be familiar with iron, copper, tin, zinc, silver and gold (in about that order), at all.

 

Glass, likewise, requires fire to produce, and so there'd likely be a lot less of that, too.

 

With the absence of such materials, and a lack of gunpowder, IMO the colonial expansion of the European powers into the Western Hemisphere and Africa would likely have been greatly slowed, and perhaps even halted in regions with strong centralized governments. Technological superiority was one significant factor in Europe's success overseas, although by no means the only one.

[Clonus]

Re: Alternate Universe: No Industry, No Guns

 

We can assume that such a world would advance more slowly. While they could still develop electric power sources like hydroelectricity and industrialise that way, fossil fuels would be a quicker and easier path. Transportation technology would be particularly handicapped, so I can easily see technology becoming much more regionalised with a bigger gap between city and country. Inland and away from rivers things tend to become very primitive if not wild. Fortification becomes comparatively more effective without artillery so the castle-building phase only stops when an area is particularly sure that there's no fear of war or uprising. Thus a greater tendency not to abandon monarchy.

[SSgt Baloo]

Re: Alternate Universe: No Industry, No Guns

 

Discovering the many uses of oil may be what saved the whales from extinction (or postponed their extinction, depending on your POV on the subject). I'd say the whales would have been hunted to extinction unless someone figured out an easy way to make lamp oil (or a substitute) that could compete with the "cheapness" of whale oil.

 

Steel can be made using charcoal even without coal, but it's much more efficient to use coke made from coal instead (you don't have to cut down so many forests). Some steel might be available, but I'm sure it would be a rare and expenstive substance.

 

If no-one had invented gunpowder, a lot of construction, quarrying, and mining would be significantly more difficult. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder People tend to forget the firearms haven't been the only use to which gunpowder (or explosive material in general) is put.

 

I really doubt we'd be using anything more sophisticated to power our society than grain- and grass-eating animals (edit: and other people). People would be killing each other in wars with some sort of cutlery. Life would be nasty, brutal and short. A lot of the advances of the 19th century that led to improved sanitation, cleaner cities, and improved standards of living just would not have happened. Odds are that Life expectancy might be no better than it was a hundred years ago (45 or so and you'd beaten the odds).

[nexus]

Re: Alternate Universe: No Industry, No Guns

 

I should add that the setting is soft science. Not quite a rubber as Star Trek but not hard science.

[SSgt Baloo]

Re: Alternate Universe: No Industry, No Guns

 

I should add that the setting is soft science. Not quite a rubber as Star Trek but not hard science.

 

All bets are off, then. I still think the whales would've been toast without the discovery of a cheaper alternative to whale oil. Likewise, pollution in large cities would be incredible, what with tons of animal exhaust hitting the streets each day (not to mention that in a large enough population of animals, a significant percentage of them perish each day, creating a number of carcasses to be removed. When internal combustion and electricity were introduced, cities quickly became much cleaner in direct proportion to the reductuion in livestock. It wasn't until some time in the 1950s that people began noticing a significant problem with smog in congested areas. The wider effects of lead-based fuels were either unknown or not widely known.

[Clonus]

Re: Alternate Universe: No Industry, No Guns

 

OK then. Electrical generation has been invented, and cities have lights, factories and mass transit systems powered by it. Cross country travel however relies on canal barges or animals pulling cars over rail systems. Farms haven't mechanised and plantation agriculture is being used to grow cotton in what in our world is the American South. Clipper ships cross the oceans.

[nexus]

Re: Alternate Universe: No Industry, No Guns

 

I wanted to make sure there was no impressions of restraint. I'm interested in all sorts of ideas and theories "hard" or "soft".

[Lawnmower Boy]

Re: Alternate Universe: No Industry, No Guns

 

Actually, the Cumbrian and Swedish steel industries went "Industrial revolution" on charcoal. There's no need to assume less steel. Same with gunpowder. There's lots of alternative explosives. Saltpetre was just the cheapest and most readily available. Cordite replaced it in the 1880s, long before the European expansion had gained momentum in Africa and east Asia. (In fact, the case can be made that cordite is the secret ingredient there.) You'd have to go really soft science to exclude all possible propellants.

[Clonus]

Re: Alternate Universe: No Industry, No Guns

 

Actually' date=' the Cumbrian and Swedish steel industries went "Industrial revolution" on charcoal. There's no need to assume less steel. Same with gunpowder. There's lots of alternative explosives. Saltpetre was just the cheapest and most readily available. Cordite replaced it in the 1880s, long before the European expansion had gained momentum in Africa and east Asia. (In fact, the case can be made that cordite is the secret ingredient there.) You'd have to go really soft science to exclude all possible propellants.[/quote']

 

But it isn't necessary. You just say "They didn't happen to invent guns". You can even go so far as to change the behavior of gases under high pressure to eliminate these technologies.

[SSgt Baloo]

Re: Alternate Universe: No Industry, No Guns

 

Actually' date=' the Cumbrian and Swedish steel industries went "Industrial revolution" on charcoal. There's no need to assume less steel. Same with gunpowder. There's lots of alternative explosives. Saltpetre was just the cheapest and most readily available. Cordite replaced it in the 1880s, long before the European expansion had gained momentum in Africa and east Asia. (In fact, the case can be made that cordite is the secret ingredient there.) You'd have to go really soft science to exclude all possible propellants.[/quote']

 

Yep, I was thinking that I once had a Mechaniker (Irritated, if not completely mad scientist, er... Natural Philosopher who invented the pneumalest, a bolt-thrower powered by compressed air. If the science is really soft, making wood alcohol and methane from agricultural waste would allow some industrialization. Advanced chemistry could make celluloid (one of the first artificial man-made material) the basis for a whole branch of organic materials science. Nitrocellulose (guncotton) would revolutionize construction, mining and demolition even if strong metals weren't available in sufficient quantities to allow the cunstruction of projectile-throwing weapons.

 

One unintended side effect of a nonindustrial world would be that aluminum might remain shiny (even though it would be rare). ISTR somewhere that it wasn't until the advent of high-sulpher pollution (starting with coal) that there was much of anything that would tarnish aluminum (although I suppose galvanic corrosion would still be possible).

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Alternate Universe: No Industry, No Guns

 

Yep' date=' I was thinking that I once had a Mechaniker (Irritated, if not completely mad scientist, er... [i']Natural Philosopher[/i] who invented the pneumalest, a bolt-thrower powered by compressed air. If the science is really soft, making wood alcohol and methane from agricultural waste would allow some industrialization. Advanced chemistry could make celluloid (the first artificial man-made material) the basis for a whole branch of organic materials science. Nitrocellulose (guncotton) would revolutionize construction, mining and demolition even if strong metals weren't available in sufficient quantities to allow the cunstruction of projectile-throwing weapons.

 

One unintended side effect of a nonindustrial world would be that aluminum might remain shiny (even though it would be rare). ISTR somewhere that it wasn't until the advent of high-sulpher pollution (starting with coal) that there was much of anything that would tarnish aluminum (although I suppose galvanic corrosion would still be possible).

 

to support the pnuematisist thing....

when the science of gun smithing was really beginning to take off in the late 16th century, there were some extremely nasty examples of combat air guns produced, that were every bit as potent as the gunpowder weapons of the time. They were dropped for religious reasons... the Pope declared them an abomination, IIRC (probably as a favor to a relative who made gunpowder)

 

had things gone differently, or if there was no gunpowder to begin with, I imagine pneumatic and spring loaded weapons would make advances by leaps and bounds

[Maur]

Re: Alternate Universe: No Industry, No Guns

 

But it isn't necessary. You just say "They didn't happen to invent guns". You can even go so far as to change the behavior of gases under high pressure to eliminate these technologies.

 

Sounds like the premise for "Dies the Fire" by S.M. Sirling. The only problem with this is that the Sun and the outer planets wouldn't work if the basic laws of gases under high pressure were changed.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Alternate Universe: No Industry, No Guns

 

What would the world look like today if (assume some handwavium reason) there were no fossil fuels (Oil' date=' gas, coal, etc) and gunpowder simply didn't work/exist?[/quote']

 

Very sword & sorcery or post-apocalyptic. People like killin' each other, and you can use wood to burn a fire to heat metal. But seeing as fossil fuels are the things that allow society to blossom, we'd get to the age of sail and pretty much stop.

[Tom Carman]

Re: Alternate Universe: No Industry, No Guns

 

to support the pnuematisist thing....

when the science of gun smithing was really beginning to take off in the late 16th century, there were some extremely nasty examples of combat air guns produced, that were every bit as potent as the gunpowder weapons of the time. They were dropped for religious reasons... the Pope declared them an abomination, IIRC (probably as a favor to a relative who made gunpowder)

 

had things gone differently, or if there was no gunpowder to begin with, I imagine pneumatic and spring loaded weapons would make advances by leaps and bounds

 

Never heard of any religious prohibition on pneumatic guns, and I'm not sure it would have worked anyway at that point. The airguns may have been as potent as contemporary gunpowder weapons, but generally less convenient, as the good ones needed pumps. (On the other hand, they had exchangeable air tanks and a multi-shot capability.) I recall that Napoleon had a standing order to execute anyone caught with a (silent!) airgun, since they were assumed to be assassins.

[Lawnmower Boy]

Re: Alternate Universe: No Industry, No Guns

 

Sounds like the premise for "Dies the Fire" by S.M. Sirling. The only problem with this is that the Sun and the outer planets wouldn't work if the basic laws of gases under high pressure were changed.

Nothing would work. These are pretty fundamental physical principles we are talking about. Deflagration occurs because a rapid combustion produces very hot molecules. Heat equals velocity, so lots of molecules start rushing in any direction open to movement. If they encounter a musket ball in the way, it moves, too.

I'm also at a loss as to why one would go to this trouble. Apart from siege warfare, which everyone in fantasy fiction seems to regard as too boring for life, gunpowder changed surprisingly little in war during the 4 centuries of its use. People still hit each other with pointed metal sticks. A lot.

Thia Halmades' story about pneumatic guns sounds confused. Before "pneumatics" was a branch of control engineering and an eternal day-after-tomorrow technology (sleep on an air bed if you want to know why air guns don't work), it was a pretty convoluted branch of theology with a very high heresy quotient. The Pope most certainly did get involved in condeming one branch of pneumatic thinking in 1607 (IIRC), but it was speculative theology --and Spanish Dominicans fighting Spanish Jesuits--, not engineering, that was at issue.

[Clonus]

Re: Alternate Universe: No Industry, No Guns

 

Sounds like the premise for "Dies the Fire" by S.M. Sirling. The only problem with this is that the Sun and the outer planets wouldn't work if the basic laws of gases under high pressure were changed.

 

That would be a hard science fiction objection. We're talking Sliders here.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Alternate Universe: No Industry, No Guns

 

Nothing would work. These are pretty fundamental physical principles we are talking about. Deflagration occurs because a rapid combustion produces very hot molecules. Heat equals velocity, so lots of molecules start rushing in any direction open to movement. If they encounter a musket ball in the way, it moves, too.

I'm also at a loss as to why one would go to this trouble. Apart from siege warfare, which everyone in fantasy fiction seems to regard as too boring for life, gunpowder changed surprisingly little in war during the 4 centuries of its use. People still hit each other with pointed metal sticks. A lot.

Thia Halmades' story about pneumatic guns sounds confused. Before "pneumatics" was a branch of control engineering and an eternal day-after-tomorrow technology (sleep on an air bed if you want to know why air guns don't work), it was a pretty convoluted branch of theology with a very high heresy quotient. The Pope most certainly did get involved in condeming one branch of pneumatic thinking in 1607 (IIRC), but it was speculative theology --and Spanish Dominicans fighting Spanish Jesuits--, not engineering, that was at issue.

 

It's entirely possible that the source I was remembering reading got that distinction confused, because I'm totally failing to find anything supporting what I said earlier. I'm not suprised, frankly... If I remember correctly, the info was from a 19th century book on the history of arms and armor, and victorian sources were often a bit sketchy with their accuracy.

 

Heres a cool site about Regency period combat grade airguns, however...

Girandoni air rifle

[Lawnmower Boy]

Re: Alternate Universe: No Industry, No Guns

 

Oops, sorry Mr. Halmades. Got you confused with Amadan naBriona.

That said....Cast Wall of Text!

Before, say, 1780, coal mining was a significant local industry in Britain supporting home heating and a number of industrial applications and perhaps the largest network of railways in the world. (It's hard to tell, because there were a lot of railways before there were railways, if you catch my drift.) However, still not that important in the grand scheme of things.

What changed things was the emergence of coal-fired "Walloon furnaces" in the Severn watershed. Basically tall reactors filled with iron ore, coke and crushed limestone for flux and fed with "blasted" air from the bottom, they were ideal for producing large quantities of cast iron, and were certainly introduced to Britain by Romanophones, but probably Seicento Milanese rather than the Franco-Belgian Protestants often credited by the religious prejudices of an earlier age.

Producing large quantities of cast iron carries with it one problem. Hardly anyone wants cast iron. It's a pretty crap product, and in the old days had to be handworked in fineries to make wrought iron or low-grade steel, or crucible-treated to make cemented or high grade steel.

That changed in and where it did for one reason, and one reason only. The Royal Navy needed a lot of cast iron for making guns, nails, braces and bars. A large amount of iron on the market allowed opportunistic competition in the gee-gaw business, and from there the use of cast iron spread to areas where it wasn't really suitable except by price --notably steam engine parts and rails.

Come the 1850s, it was increasingly obvious that cast-iron rails were not a good idea. That was not on Henry Bessemer's mind when he was experimenting with what we now call converters, though. He was aiming to produce artillery-grade steel by some means cheaper than baking wrought iron in a crucible. When he discovered that some of the impurities in cast iron caught fire in his converters, raising temperatures to the point where he could pour molten steel, he thought he'd discovered a Brave New World. He was wrong. Converter steel (whatever the specific process used) is by its nature pretty low quality stuff, suitable for girders and rails in low traffic areas and not much else. Fortunately, the world needed so many girders and rails that hardly anyone cared.

Those who did care went on looking for what we now call an open-hearth steelmaking process. The result was complex, highly engineered, fuel-dependent plants in operation by the 1880s. The age of cheap, good steel had arrived. And within a generation, some of it was being made with electricity instead of fossil fuels.

In summary: we would not have taken the first steps down the road eventually taken without gunpowder. However, there is a road to cheap, mass-produced steel that does not run through fossil fuels. I am skeptical that we could have the civilisation that we have without fossil fuels, but the civilisation we would have would not be marked by an absence of steel.

It would certainly have less cheap steel. No railroads, no large automotive industry, no sprawling suburbs. It would have many more canals, more dams, nuclear reactors, and lots of macadam roads still using animal traction.

With vastly more need for animal fodder, agriculture would be big business. There would be Finnish-style farms in the Canadian north, rice paddies in lowland New Guinea, and genetically modified horses for the cavalry.

[Ocelot]

Re: Alternate Universe: No Industry, No Guns

 

Dies the Fire by S M Stirling.

 

Basically, all tech stops working.

 

Good read.

[Lawnmower Boy]

Re: Alternate Universe: No Industry, No Guns

 

Dies the Fire by S M Stirling.

 

Basically, all tech stops working.

 

Good read.

Mild dissent:

 

I declare a fatwa against S. M. Stirling for being a loud-mouthed schnook.

(There shall be only one )

[SSgt Baloo]

Re: Alternate Universe: No Industry, No Guns

 

Mild dissent:

 

I declare a fatwa against S. M. Stirling for being a loud-mouthed schnook.

(There shall be only one )

 

Whoa there, I say, whoa there, boy! Ya don't want to go off half cocked, now, do ya?

[Lawnmower Boy]

Re: Alternate Universe: No Industry, No Guns

 

Whoa there' date=' I say, whoa there, boy! Ya don't want to go off half cocked, now, do ya?[/quote']

If there was a hound dog around this here farmyard, he'd take me seriously.