Is any break in the total global civilization's standards going to push humanity down to Mad Max tribalism levels?
Is it possible for humanity to only slide back down to, say, feudal levels?
Or does humanity always restart at the bottom and work back up the civilization scale (Greek Dark Ages, European Dark Ages, etc)
Other urls found in this thread:
johnstonsarchive.net
en.wikipedia.org
airpower.maxwell.af.mil
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
ase.tufts.edu
milesmathis.com
twitter.com
>Humanity restarts at the bottom
>European 'Dark Age'.
Read something that's been written about the Early Medieval Period since 1900.
>Is it possible for humanity to only slide back down to, say, feudal levels?
Yes, and especially nowadays. That's because we've crossed the point of no return in many technological areas, now. The industrial revolution was supported by easily reached resources, but now all those are gone. The resources that we use to produce this advanced technogical lifestyle can only be reached by advanced technological means. That's especially true for fuel.
If shit hits the fan, we're going to fall from very high, and we won't ever return to these heights.
But excluding alien invasions, shit won't hit the fan for every country on earth at the same time. So, for example, if 2 nuke are dropped on USA east and west coasts, Europe and Asia will still go on and will become the overlords of humanity. But those who stay on the american territory won't be able to reachieve their old standard of living.
We broke a bar under us on the ladder of advancement, and if we ever go back, we won't return.
I wouldn't say 'cant ever' return, but it would certainly be an uphill battle. Not prevents us from retracting our steps, but its a time consuming process especially if records of how we did it the first time are lost.
Without the petrochemical boom progress will be slow. In some areas there will be no return to the dizzying heights of the 21st Century, where you could cross the globe in 24 hours and afford to run your lights even when it's not dark, but the comforts of modern civilisation gone forever? Nah. Humanity, uh, finds a way.
There's a book called Seveneves about the moon getting obliterated and mankind having to move a small but sustainable population into orbit to spare us from total extinction by falling lunar debris.
One of the little details I liked that is, after the thousands of years long timeskip to the civilization that rises from the ashes, they have relics of smartphones and such that people brought with them into space, and everyone in the future just sort of implicitly agrees that they were an insane idea. From their utilitarian standpoint, giving that level of processing power in your pocket was just seen as incredibly wasteful and unnecessary.
>We broke a bar under us on the ladder of advancement, and if we ever go back, we won't return.
This is one of my favorite post-apocalyptic tropes. Inability to return to the old ways because the gap is now too great to cross without the full working infrastructure of the old days. Even if things settle down and the raider gangs become farmers, humanity will never again reach the moon or whatever.
>tfw the Fall will be the best thing to happen to West Virgina since the civil war
Coals coming back, baby
>to spare us from total extinction by falling lunar debris
Isn't the big problem that the Earth's axis is now fucked thanks to not having a satellite to keep it stable?
The actual problem is that most of the "apocalypses" we fantasize on wouldn't realistically mean the world would revert to pre-industrial tech. At its height ww3 would "just" kill perhaps 3 billion people.
Which would mean Europe (for example) would be right there on Somalia's bad days level for decades, certainly, and good luck find working cars and oil to have Mad Max sheaningans on the romantic ruins of Munchen.
But it wouldn't by any way mean that -say- In Brazil they would just forgot how tvs worked, much less planes and shit. More like a global slowing than a reverse button.
Funnily enough I think Miyazaki did it right in Nausicaa. In the manga it's pretty clear that it was a nuclear war on stereoids + biosphere semi-annihilation already going on (remember, trees are something of a relic of a bygone age, horses are gone the way of dinosaurs, the seas themselves are dead - think about this for a second) + the fucking continents aren't the same, for a good measure.
I would say that in a scenario like this humanity would've been reduced to, I dunno, 100,000/perhaps 1 million scattered people in the remotest areas of the planet, when the seven days of fire rained on Earth. In this case, yeah, we would possibly be start back from making flints for fire, without basically the possibility of a shared industrial culture.
>I do remember that they mention some snippets of pre-catacalysm books as something the elite would have access to at least, but I always assumed they were newer archeological findings
>WW3
>Not a full teamkill
I'm assuming here that when you say WW3, you mean an international exchange of nuclear weapons.
That's a minimum of 7+ Billion kills with maybe, MAYBE 10,000 survivors in the isolated corners of the deep Pacific
>I'm assuming here that when you say WW3, you mean an international exchange of nuclear weapons.
Nowhere in his post did he even suggest this
Bullshit.
johnstonsarchive.net
See the cites at the end.
Doomsday weapons are just a treehuggers' fantasy. As of now, at least.
What possible scenario of a direct war between US/Russia/China does NOT include nukes?
First of all
>Greek or European Dark Ages
>starting from the bottom
You're wrong about both, but you're even more wrong about Europe. The "dark ages" we imagined after the collapse of the Roman Empire was mostly due to the fact that we didn't know very much about the time period yet. Our knowledge of history has improved.
Also probably false. Sure, petrochemicals was the EASIEST way, but it is far and away from the only way. We can make ethanol, sure it's not as efficient, but we can do it. Furthermore, there's technology like the Egyptian solar fields in 1912-1913, that pumped water for irrigation (source: en.wikipedia.org
Fact of the matter is, even with NO petrol, coal, or gas left on the planet, there is an abundance of methods to create energy from renewable resources. Hydrocarbons are cheap and easy and that's why we have developed them. But ultimately, they are a resource, and they deplete over time, while renewable energy sources are a technology, and they improve over time. I don't think economic & technological development would even be considerably slowed down, since we wouldn't have the retarding effect on research that the oil money has now.
Good post.
It's actually kind of scary to think we couldn't/ it could take century's to recover from a "Fall of Western Rome 2: electric boogaloo"
>Is it possible for humanity to only slide back down to, say, feudal levels?
We already are sliding back into a neo fuedal society, you just replace noble houses with corporate entities.
It's worth mentioning than even when it was cool to diss the high middle ages (so basically during the 1700-1800s) they didn't really think they forgot technology, at least in most cases. especially because... well, in the middle ages they didn't really forgot shit 99.99% of the time. You could point to armor, but they did the same thing they did in the past in the eastern empire.
A couple actually. Tom Clancy wrote about one.
Basically, the USSR invades Europe instead of letting itself collapse. Some of the higher up soldiers take control of the nukes and DON'T use them, knowing that they will only get nuked in return.
Also, it would matter what they were fighting over. South Korea invading North Korea to distract from the Cultists has different connotations than Russia making a power play in the Middle East.
People don't magically forget guns, steam engines and internal combustion engines.
Go chance some less important things become forgotten but not the essentials.
We're talking about technology, not your imaginary libtard 'social progress'. Kill yourself, because libtards like yourself are what is wrong with the white race today.
He's right you know.
As nationalism increases, governments will have less capacity to cooperate with other governments. This weakens the position of governments compared to corporations, since corporations are often transnational entities. Nationalism is a tool in the hands of the multinational corporations. It strengthens their position.
Globalism only benefits small companies, the middleclass etc. It allows small companies that don't know armies of lawyers to trade abroad. The big multinationals don't need globalism to trade in the global market, because they have the manpower and capital to throw lawyers at a country until they can trade whatever the fuck they want.
You're okay user.
People do forget the exact details on how to produce and maintain those things.
All you need is to put your story 5 minutes into the nanotech future, one wanker that develops a paper eating nanoweapon and WW3.
Suddenly, computers are busted from the nuclear war, and libraries are being eaten up by rampant nanomachines.
Except that internationalist democratic socialism is also a tool of multinationals.
No it isn't.
>socialism
>more taxes
Multinationals hate socialism.
Which is why the EU was so heavily supported by multinational finance and industry during the EU referendum.
There are other benefits; economic and social policies that drive down the cost of labour while social welfare policies keep consumption at high levels, ease of operating over large geographic areas, etc. And it's democratic socialism, ie mainstream EU parties rather than actual socialists.
Nah, large multinationals can easily get around those problems while smaller companies are squeezed by socialist policies.
I don't know about all of humanity, but I'd start murdering everyone around me the second the police stopped being a factor.
>Which is why the EU was so heavily supported by multinational finance and industry during the EU referendum.
Hahahahaha, all the bigass corporations, McDonalds, StarBucks, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, etc. want to see the EU burn.
The EU keeps slapping those companies with million or billion dollar fines for fucking privacy shit up, skimming on taxes, breaking customer laws or trying to monopolize the market.
If you think they want strong government around that can fine them if they fuck up, you're wrong.
China nukes are for countervalue strikes ie nuke them for nuking us, while the soviets were both countervalue as well as being expected to be used in tactical nuclear(low yield nukes for destroying fortifications) at first, albeit by the 70s they started to believe that an eventual WW3 could remain coventional, and the USA had the flexible response thingy, albeit I guess that the american leadership would be smart enough to know that they actually would "lose"(well, lose more) than the soviets in case of an all-out nuclear war.
See
Multinationals get their way whether people vote globalist or nationalist.
At least with a globalist economy, the small companies have an open system to import and export without paying a fuckload to settle the paperwork themselves.
This is stupid.
Corporations by themselves don't have any real power beyond economic. It's the ability of corporations to manipulate a centralized government that causes problems.
And corporations are far from the only ones with the resources to manipulate government power--the government members themselves are the ones with all of the power to be sold, after all.
They are perfectly happy with strong government that can harm their competition, though. Particularly in industrial or technological fields where a new entrant could overturn their whole apple cart.
> albeit by the 70s they started to believe that an eventual WW3 could remain coventional
I highly doubt that, given that in the '80s the NATO had run hypothetical scenarios that showed that a conventional war between NATO and the Warsaw Pakt would end in nuclear war after a month. Because after that month, both NATO and the Warsaw Pakt would have run out of soldiers and material to actually fight the war.
That's why Monsanto is always such an asshole.
Monsanto does bad things. People get outraged and want harsher laws against GMO. Harsher laws against GMO make it harder for competing companies to pop up. Monsanto remains the big GMO guy on the block and can continue business.
Hell, wouldn't surprise me if Monsanto funds radical anti-GMO groups just to keep other companies and (government-funded) university labs down.
>Corporations by themselves don't have any real power beyond economic.
Man, if the CEO of McDonald's wanted you dead, you'd be gone within the hour. Hell, even your average middle management dude has enough cash to hire an assassin if he's willing to go without yacht polish for a month.
>So, for example, if 2 nuke are dropped on USA east and west coasts, Europe and Asia will still go on and will become the overlords of humanity. But those who stay on the american territory won't be able to reachieve their old standard of living.
>If 2 nukes
good thing we don't have literally thousands of them and won't simultaneously launch them all if even a single nuke is detected and confirmed
>Monsanto remains the big GMO guy on the block and can continue business.
monsanto was going to get bought out by bayer, which are the REAL big GMO guys, but i don't remember if that deal went through or not because, it violated a number of anti-trust laws
You know, the only thing that actually bothers me about /pol/acks it's that every idea that I don't like it's socialism/ liberalism.
It's like I'm reading McArthur fanfic every day I come to the boards.
Europe is still fine if Russia and the USA duke it out. Just have to be careful about inland winds.
But that's still better than what the Russkies and Yanks are experiencing.
>McArthur
Don't make me go on a tirade about how McArthur's hardon for nuking China almost gave the Soviets a perfect WW3 scenario where they could actually win...
>I highly doubt that
>All of these changes, set against the backdrop of changing Soviet written views, seem to indicate a basic change in the Soviet view of war. While the Soviets still consider nuclear war to be a strong possibility, they increasingly indicate an acceptance of and perhaps a desire for a nonnuclear phase of operations. They seem to conclude that the existence of a strategic or tactical nuclear balance on both sides may generate a reluctance on both sides to use those weapons, a sort of mutual deterrence that increases the likelihood that conventional operations will remain conventional. At a minimum, the Soviets have prepared themselves to fight either a nuclear war or a conventional war in a nuclear-scarred posture. The Soviet version of "flexible response" emphasizes the necessity for expanding and perfecting the combined arms concept. It indicates Soviet willingness to fight a longer war while their precise force structuring and their military doctrine are aimed at keeping any war short.
Source:airpower.maxwell.af.mil
Also, unless said war manages to kill or maim over 5 millions soldiers in only a month, plus destroy a truly massive amount of material, i don't think that neither side would be unable to actually fight a conventional war.
to be honest, a Soviet China would probably be an improvement over what the citizens have to experience.
No I mean like this.
>McArthur gets his way and gets to nuke China during the Korean War
>USA is now severely lacking in nukes, because they just used them on China
>Russia can now happily invade Europe and the USA can't do jackshit about it because they hardly have any nukes left
>Globalism only benefits small companies, the middleclass etc
So what is your explanation of small companies and the middle class dying over the last 40-50 years? Nationalism wasn't exactly a major political force in that time frame.
On this note, I'm genuinely not sure if the Warsaw Pact even HAD non-nuclear plans for WW3. Every exercise I'm aware of had nuclear strikes by Day 9, but more often they were used to soften NATO defenses before the conventional phase. Basically it was
>crisis
>nuke everything
>when everyone is out of nukes it's now safe for conventional operations
>Also, unless said war manages to kill or maim over 5 millions soldiers in only a month, plus destroy a truly massive amount of material, i don't think that neither side would be unable to actually fight a conventional war.
honestly, when you read up on thermonuclear war doctrines/theory, it's actually horrifying how cold and mathematically calculating it is. there is theory for what to do if that happens too
That just means they were imagining wars with NATO that weren't WW3.
>So what is your explanation of small companies and the middle class dying over the last 40-50 years?
I dunno, small companies and the middle class are booming over here in Europe.
The only people that have a bad time economically are the low class incomes.
Not that guy but surely you have the critical reasoning skills to avoid blaming what one would assume to be incredibly complex socio-political and economic situations on something as simple as "globalism" or "nationalism"
The real problem is, the "Dark Ages", as idiot americans call it, are actually better known than most people realise. However, the notion was actually a later nationalistic one brought about with every european nation basically saying, "oh, we are the true successors to Rome," and other such nonsense.
Really, though, the "Dark Ages" was more about the collapse of the Roman roads and economic structures. Rome controlled a lot of land, and trade within the empire was a lot easier than it would have been otherwise, currency being a major factor. Once Rome "collapsed" (it just became the church and started taxing its successor states in other ways), the roads, more or less, became far more dangerous. This segmented the various nation states, and it helped prop up the feudal system.
Since no big nation existed to police the roads and areas, it came up to local provinces to police themselves.
And, as history has shown time and time again, turmoil is mostly "brief" after a great empire falls, only for the people who once formed it to gather together and work through their problems.
______________________
Also, the loss of petrochemicals now would be, more or less, a blip in the fire; and the fact is, we'd never truly run out of oil.
However, it'd be rather expensive.
But diesel is going nowhere as you can make oil to run in diesel engines from literally *anything* biological. Garbage, food waste, lumber....
Ethanol too, although it is far less efficient to do so.
Also, if the US ever gets off its ass and allows the production of Thorium reactors, the lack of an energy source will never practically occur.
_______________________
Finally, the closest equivalent in modern times to the "Dark Ages" would be the segmentation or loss of the internet.
That is all.
If you're going to go that route, isn't it equally applicable to the blanket "nationalism is bad for small companies/middle class, globalism is good" position?
Even a cursory Google search tells me that you're full of shit.
Mad Max raider gangs are fairly unrealistic unless the biosphere is destroyed or basic resources are otherwise extremely scarce and there is reason to believe even coordinated effort couldn't restore them. Look at actual research into disasters and how people react to them, and you'll find that humans generally work together to ensure mutual survival rather than start immediately killing everyone in sight. There are exceptions to this, usually due to unresolved political or social tensions, but as a rule humans aren't sociopaths, we're actually one of the most social primates around. Those 'naturey' arguments fascists, nationalists and white supremacists like to use are based on incredibly outdated science.
Source: minored in anthropology and archaeology in college (but education is a Jewish conspiracy, obviously)
Yes. We're all one of (((them))) in this field. Obviously.
>Finally, the closest equivalent in modern times to the "Dark Ages" would be the segmentation or loss of the internet.
>on one hand no more useful internet
>on the other hand, no more Veeky Forums
Such a difficult scenario... is it good or bad...
>Even a cursory Google search tells me that you're full of shit.
>cursory Google search
You never heard of the Google Search Bubble?
A LOT of international trade and infrastructure is dependent upon the internet right now. Enjoy no more Amazon Prime.
"Small companies and the middle class are booming in Europe" is an absurd claim. If you want to offer support, I'm all ears.
> as simple as "globalism" or "nationalism"
> simple
Not even him, and you can throw me all the superior mind memes you want, but you are the simple minded here
No one even mentioned Jews until you posted.
You could point that in Mad Max 2, the only one with gangs stealing&fighting*, it's more a situation of a a gang needing the resources not shared by the good guys.The one really "unbelievable" may be Interceptor, but I dunno, people reacting like that is not totally unprecedented when hope is falling.
*=both thunderdome and fury road feature proto-states, relatively stable, reacting to people stealing resources (valuable to the rulers but not necessarily just them) with stealth. Hell, Immortan was probably actually thinking of becoming some sort of pharaoh, the first of a dinasty of hydraulic despots.
im not saying they're simple concepts, i'm saying they've essentially become buzzwords for "whatever i dont like"
I watched Mad Max 1 and I didn't even realize there was an apocalypse going on. I just thought it was an average day in Australia.
The same.
Mind blown.
They say at the beginning that shit is really hitting the fan, police has few resources etc.The rest is later 70s gang scare up to eleven.
It's not necessarily the apocalypse but sure as hell it isn't a normal situation.
>on this subject I really like the fan theory that the other movies are just Max allucinating, after his losses in Interceptor, which would explain the recurrence of the same actors in some movies
>as idiot americans call it
But it was started by Renaissance Italians?
The fallacy in the very first 10 words of your post makes me want to not read the rest.
>honestly, when you read up on thermonuclear war doctrines/theory, it's actually horrifying how cold and mathematically calculating it is
Any military doctrine/theory is inherently cold and mathematical as possible, with material, resources, morale, and lifes, both civilian and military, being calculated relative to their actual short, medium, and long-term usefulness, largely because you can't affort to actually be emotional when comes to military planning.
>That just means they were imagining wars with NATO that weren't WW3.
Least give a basic analysis here: Who, exactly, stands to win more in a nuclear war from the 70s onward? It is not the UK, for it is a small nation with high population density and a limited nuclear stockpile, and it is not France, for similar reasons of that of the UK. So that leaves the USSR and the USA. But the USA nukes are closer to its main populational and industrial centers compared to the USSR, sometimes far more, meaning that even a countervalue strike is likely to about a third of its population, compared to "only" 20% of soviet population in case of a NATO countervalue strike. Thus this leaves the USSR as the "winner" of a nuclear war, yet, it was both soviet and NATO belief that the soviet would be likely to win a coventional war because of its shorter supply lines, and larger coventional forces, meaning that the soviets have no reason to believe that initiating a nuclear war would actually benefit them. So, in pratical terms, the leadership of France, the UK, the USA and of the USSR would have to be idiotical at best, and suicidal at worst to started a nuclear war, as none of them stand to win something out of it, and risk a lot, and in some cases, everything, if they start it.
Please read the rest, I immediately follow up with talking about how it was also european powers claiming to be the true successors to Rome.
>in case of a NATO countervalue strike
*counterforce
FWIW, in Italy we don't really call them "the dark ages". There isn't really an equivalent, even. We just say "il medioevo", the middle age.
I guess to an extent the fact that places like England actually had something way more similar to a technological collapse does mean something.
(I think the french don't use it as a word either; not sure about the germans, which is interesting)
"Middle age" exist in english and "Mittelalter" in german.
>che cosa intendeva con questo?
>Is it possible for humanity to only slide back down to, say, feudal levels?
You're assuming fatalistic trends of history.
Humanity doesn't work like that. Whatever comes after the fall will be unique, though certain patterns may be extrapolated to the past.
That i find funny how people assume that the same concepts are universal, more or less.
Here we have the same periodicization (high middle ages/altomedioevo/ "dark ages") but one language has also the, uhm, less neutral term. I think it has some slight implications, possibly form the different ways the period went in different places.
I just think the term "Dark Ages" is outdated.
What are you smoking?
The "Dark Ages" of England saw the Great Migration of the Saxons and an IMPROVEMENT of Infastructure from Roman-Garrison centric government to the Shire system we STILL use today.
You do realize that in England shit was so shit that they went from central heating in houses (rome) to open fireplaces without chimneys, right?
after a good deal of the native population was killed, displaced and moved westward, or to bretagne and asturias.
>Everyone in Britain lived in a Roman style Villas
If you think the Anglo-Saxons suddenly arrived on the shores and raped and pillaged, you need to stop listening to stupid shit.
The Saxons were given the land by the Romans, specifically places like Kent.
The Romantic-Celt and Saxon War was started entirely because of Roman meddling And it was always Roman meddling that never forsaw a united Celtic power in Britain.
I picked an example of higher class living in both cases, dude.
>B-But Saxon's lived in shit mud huts even when they were rich.
The fact that most of the Villas we get were probably ruined and in disrepair well before the Great Roman flight, the fact that you think Roman houses were more advanced than Saxon houses purely because they were Roman Aesthetic shows you're a fucking invalid.
Here is an example of Anglo-Saxon Stonework. Not exactly pretty, but it's not a shithut like you Romanboos think every building was.
>people moved to Bretagne just because of the lovely weather
People moved because the Franks were stealing territory and the Britons offered the Territory.
You don't quite understand Post-Roman Britain the entire western coast was literally uninhabited and even during Roman rule, the most northern city was York and it was, again, a Garrison.
This idea that Roman Britain was built up is fabricated entirely on the hype people get around a Roman Villa.
They probably looked nothing like Roman Villa ruins in italy and alot of the resources were imported.
Typical Celtic houses were worse in all fronts.
You do realize this church original structure is from the latter 900s/1000s, right?
The centuries of difference make this compariision, I dunno, like comparing London skyscrapers of this century to buildings contemporary to the Globe's Theatre.
Also, I don't "think" they were. The best tech for heating in England back then, as much as we can collect evidence for (which isn't much, granted), was how I said it was. Need a cite?
BRETAGNE in FRANCE. People moved from Great Britain to BRETAGNE or Asturias because the saxons displaced them.
Probably the saxons were invited and there was a tad bit of mixing, afaik Cedric is a celtic name.
Actually, We have a couple of Anglo-Saxon churches and Anglo-celt churches from around 600AD.
So about Halfway through the Great Migration. Which as between 5th century and 7th century.
en.wikipedia.org
As you can see, the Stonework is rough and it's not a pretty building really, BUT it survived longer than all the Roman buildings, even the greater churches.
Now, your argument is "Muh Roman central heating" which was mostly a large basement designed to heat the floor. These were Pisspoor foundations for heavy houses. something needed in England because it has high winds AND at the time was mostly Bog or Woodland.
You're trying to say American houses are mode advanced and better build than English houses, Because American houses are made of cheap wood while English houses are made of Solid stone and brick.
One technology falling by the wayside because it was impractical for the location is not a sign of the people becoming stupider.
Hell, the Differences between the Celtic made church here en.wikipedia.org
>Pushing the Dark Ages weren't Dark meme
It's literally been discredited by modern historical research and analysis. They were dark, especially for people that used to live as part of the Roman Empire. Life expectancy dropped dramatically, violent deaths increased, and trade and economic growth flatlined.
You could search that wherever, your statement's not even kind of true.
>Doomsday weapons are just a treehuggers' fantasy.
What did he mean by this?
when people talk about the dark ages not being dark they mean artistically and intellectually since that was context of Petrarch's gay revisionist meme to begin with
The main arguement against nukes is "They'll destroy the world! Why have a weapon that'll only kill all of humanity!"
The truth is that even if we exploded all the nukes in the world at once, you couldn't even kill half the humans on earth, let alone damage the enviorment permantely.
Nukes at the current stage would fuck humanity hard, but no where near "Civilization Stepback" levels
That's not what the moon does. That's stupid. By that logic, Mercury, Venus, and Mars have unstable orbits.
Axis, fucktard
The Earth's axis is held stable by the moon, which allows for a stable environment to develop thanks to a constant pattern of seasons and sunlight. Without it, the axis begin to tumble more violently as time goes on, which fucks the environment beyond sustainability.
You're still wrong for the exact same reason. If anything, with the mass ratio of the Earth-Moon system being so much higher than with any other planet, the moon should be making any axial shifts even more extreme.
Jesus Christ, we got a real Astrophysicists here...
ase.tufts.edu
>The climate forecast for a Moon-less Earth would be a lot bleaker. The gravitational pull of our large Moon acts as an anchor, limiting excursions in the Earth's rotation axis and keeping the climate relatively stable. Without the Moon, the tilt of Earth's spin axis would vary chaotically between 0 and 85 degrees. Such large variations in the planet's obliquity would result in dramatic changes in climate. With an obliquity of 0 degrees, there would be no seasonal variation in the distribution of sunlight on Earth. At 85 degrees, the Earth's axis would be tipped completely over. The equatorial tropics could then be permanently in cold winter snows, and the poles would be alternately pointed almost directly at or away from the Sun over the course of a single year. Such wide climate changes might be hostile to many forms of life on Earth.
But this is wrong. Mars, Venus, etc. don't have wild tilts around their axis like that. Not even Mercury does.
>Corporations by themselves don't have any real power beyond economic.
This is why nobody likes you /pol/. You're retarded.
I contest this point as well. The art produced in the 'dark ages' was nice, sure- sutton hoo helmet and all very nice; but the fact that only a kings burial mound was adorned with such wealth whereas the Roman world was rife with levels of public art and quality consumer goods and art on a level not seen until the 16-17th century. For the average fuck again, things were massively worse after Rome fell.
>Mercury
Guess how much Mercury spins? Almost not at all (two-three turns per ORBIT)
Little spin, little tumble
>Venus
Venus had a moon at one time and since it's "addition" to the planet itself, Venus' tumble has been speeding up.
>Mars
Mars has large enough moons to keep the axis relatively stable
>for the average fuck
unless you're in an overcrowded urbus where fire could kill off a few thousand people casually, a slave dying of exhaustion on a latifundia, or a roman legionarre getting your property stolen by some cocksucking senator