Gliese 667 Cc

[threecat]

How advanced could a civzilation that had everything but metal become? Responses are welcomed.

[masako]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic < That much.

Assuming, of course, your question pertains to an Earth-like conplanet.

[Ahzoh]

depends on what you refer to as metal? in the periodic table of elements there exists "metalloids" which form the staircase and non-metals which are to the right of that, earth non-metals are usually gases, though there are some solids and one liquid.

maybe if your conword had hard durable non-metals (that still have poperties of non-metals like electrical resistance) then your conpeople could advance justs as much as us or maybe more so.

[Ànradh]

I think he wants to know how advanced a civilisation could become without metal tools, rather than if it existed on a world without any metals at all.

[Ahzoh]

I think he wants to know how advanced a civilisation could become without metal tools, rather than if it existed on a world without any metals at all.

as I've said, a civilization can be just as advanced as one that uses METAL tools, if they have NON-METAL tools that are as hard and/or durable as would be a metal one.

[Thakowsaizmu]

How are you defining "advanced"?

[Chagen]

I think he wants to know how advanced a civilisation could become without metal tools, rather than if it existed on a world without any metals at all.

as I've said, a civilization can be just as advanced as one that uses METAL tools, if they have NON-METAL tools that are as hard and/or durable as would be a metal one.

That would make your entire question pointless--if they have stuff that's exactly like metals but aren't actually metals, then the differences don't matter--the stuff has the same function, and thus said civilization would not differ from a metal-using one in any unique way.

[Ahzoh]

I think he wants to know how advanced a civilisation could become without metal tools, rather than if it existed on a world without any metals at all.

as I've said, a civilization can be just as advanced as one that uses METAL tools, if they have NON-METAL tools that are as hard and/or durable as would be a metal one.

That would make your entire question pointless--if they have stuff that's exactly like metals but aren't actually metals, then the differences don't matter--the stuff has the same function, and thus said civilization would not differ from a metal-using one in any unique way.

Well, I should correct myself, one also has to take into account the properties of non-metal, they have low ductility, so they can't be squeeze into small things very easily, they don't conduct electricity, so it would be hard for things like having electricity, and they don't conduct heat, certaintly not good for cooking food on it.

[Kehgrehdid]

they don't conduct electricity, so it would be hard for things like having electricity, and they don't conduct heat, certaintly not good for cooking food on it.

My Pyrex and ceramic cookware would like to disagree with you.

There are many materials that would still be available for use by a society that did not have access to extractable metal. These include:
Wood
Stone
Cloth
Leather
Concrete
Glass
Rope
Composite materials (they could have kevlar!)
Advanced adhesives
Paper
Clay/Ceramics/bricks
Explosives
Rubber

I admit, I am not sure about the feasibility of making plastics without metal equipment, but this is a list with a wide range of possibilities.

In fact, I have given this idea quite a bit of thought as I've realized a lot of what makes us call a society advanced is based on how much they can do with metal and the electromagnetic spectrum. I first wanted to think outside the box and think what would qualify a society as advanced if they did not use electricity or complex machinery, and I found the most effective way to do this was to say there was no available metal for tools or devices. Their society might have some aspects similar to mesoamericans, earlier Chinese/Japanese cultures, minus swords and armor, or the civilian aspects of Greek society.

The Aswam have neither metal nor electricity. Nor do they have gears or machinery much beyond wheels, levers and pulleys. Yet they can have hot-air balloons, advanced sailing ships, concrete highways, aqueducts & bridges, thermal solar collectors, microscopes & telescopes (They do have glass that can be ground into lenses), kevlar, rockets with paper or composite bodies, and clamshell printing presses with etched glass plates or fired clay type.

In non-technology areas, they could be very advanced in areas including
Religion, ethics, & philosophy
Literature
Law and legal system
Family structure and roles, very different from Western modernity's individualism.
Mathematics, biology, chemistry, and astronomy
Medicine, which might look like alternative medicine sometimes, but still be very effective
Navigation
Athletics
Agriculture (breeding superproductive crops & livestock so mechanization is not so necessary)
Architecture (Concrete, brick, wood and stone allow for some impressive buildings. they are experimenting with reinforcing concrete with composites to see if that would help under tension)
Music
Cooking/Nutrition

A current project for thew Aswam is developing a method of conveying either 500 lb of cargo or 4 adult passengers over land at 20mph or more for at least an hour, other than horses & cart.

We consider ourselves advanced because we can do a lot with electricity and the electromagnetic spectrum. But there are plenty of areas to be advanced in that do not depend on the presence of electricity or metal inventions, or even a metal-equivalent.
One definition of a developed society os one that does not spend the majority of its time and energy producing and distributing food. I think it is conceivable that a society could devise ways to reach this point without mechanization, perhaps through developing superproductive crops and livestock.

[Salmoneus]

Theoretically, a stone-age society could progress to about the 18th century in terms of technology. Electricity is where things go wrong for them - technically graphite conducts, so they may be able to have electricity demonstrations (and of course they can use static electricity to some extent), but graphite is far too rare and too awkward to work with to replace metals on a large scale, so electrical culture is probably off-limits.
It's important to realise that it won't just be things with metals in that they can't get from then on. Huge tranches of 19th and 20th century stuff relies on electricity in its production - in particular, the massive advances made in chemistry with the aid of electrolysis etc - although most chemistry can be done without electricity, it's doubtful whether people would have the understanding necessary to do it without the knowledge gained from electrolysis (and then there's the issue of cost - electricity is required in many of the cheapest methods to optain certain chemicals; for instance, Kevlar's chain of production typically involves chlorination, and electolysing common brine is a WAY cheaper was of producing chlorine than reacting mined pyrolusite ore with the gas produced when you add salt to the oil you get from roasting green vitriol). Plus, of course, no mass production.

The bigger constraint, though, is cost. Up to the 18th century, you can do pretty much everything with stone, glass or ceramics, but that doesn't mean the lack of metal hasn't hurt you. The big asset metal things have is their durability - they last a long time, can withstand a lot of wear and tear, and when they're damaged they can be easily repaired. Stone, glass and ceramics, on the other hand, can all be damaged very easily, and when they are damaged they're broken and have to be replaced from scratch. Similarly, if it's the strength of the metal that you want (I don't know, maybe for pulleys or capstans or something), you can replace the metal with wood. Oak is an amazing material. But it's also a hell of a lot more expensive to work than metal is. Oaken items also can't be repurposed easily, whereas metal can be melted down and re-used, which again adds to the price, and in the long run gives you problems with resourse sustainability. Likewise nails - you can hold things together with wooden nails, or with well-designed wooden joints, and in fact you may be able to get a better product by doing so - but it also costs a lot more, because you need a better carpenter and he needs to work for longer to do it.
So without metal, almost everything becomes just that bit more expensive. Which means it's more likely to not be worth doing. The entire economy is hit, and may never develop, or if it does it may develop much more slowly.

[masako]

Salmoneus, the second half of your post seems to assume a value system, or economic base that is similar or the same as Earth's [never mind similar/same flora]...the original poster did not explicitly say one way or another whether that is the case despite having been asked

[Salmoneus]

...if by 'similar economic base', you mean that they live in a world with scarcity of resources, yes. If they have an infinite supply of every resource, then I don't see how the original question makes sense anyway.

If you mean something more specific: of course it doesn't. It's a simple fact that some things cost more than other things - whether that cost is met by individuals, companies, governments, co-operatives, alien benefactors or whatever the hell else doesn't alter this.

Of course, it should be obvious that while one thing may make a product more expensive, another thing may make it cheaper. If, for instance, these people live in a world where various appropriate forms of stone and natural glass exist in pre-formed shapes in a great superfluous abundance, then clearly it won't matter to them so much that their tools keep needing to be replaced.

Likewise, if their flora produces a material that is exactly the same as metal but isn't called metal. But I don't think "well, if there's a substance that's exactly the same as metal but isn't metal, nothing much will be different" is a very useful or interesting response to "how would things be different without metal?".

[basilius]

I wanted to agree with Salmoneus on electricity, but then I realized that there are several important caveats.

Charcoal is essentially graphite, and there are cheap technologies permitting to make it very pure and produce parts of elaborate shapes out of it. Add a cover of a durable dielectric (concrete?), and...

Also, the habit of combining a fragile conductor with a solid dielectric base may provoke an early development of technologies related to printed circuits. So, the civilization may end inventing comps earlier than electric motors (which seem indeed difficult), and that would be fun.

Also, water solutions of many salts are conductors. They must sustain powers in the range needed for e. g. electric bulbs; I am lazy to make actual calculations, but intuitively it seems that with higher powers the problem will be mostly about heating, and that's manageable.

Yet they won't have any conductors comparable to copper, nor such a customary thing as wire. Alas.

Designing a metalless power generator will be a separate headache.

---

But it seems to me that more curious things about the metalless civ will have to do with its pre-modern stages. For example, the constant need to often replace tools made of less durable materials may turn out a factor in very early development of mass production. Also, it will affect stereotypical approaches to machine design. Those metalless guys may have lots of machines assembled of easy-to-replace parts, with mechanical processing mostly relying on abrasives (and chemical/thermal preprocessing?). Perhaps, most of their tools will be as cheap as our disposable tableware

BTW, plastics! we aren't suited to thinking of more durable kinds of these as real substitutes for metals, but a civ without metals might experiment with them a lot more than we do. Also, composites... fiberglass is already not so bad, and there are stronger ones.

Also, tree farms... there are tree species whose wood is more durable than oak's.

---

Also, why no metals?

For a civ actively experimenting with heating and melting stuff (glass, ceramics, plastics), discovery of metals and development of advanced metallurgy should be a matter of centuries (if not decades) rather than millennia.

A justification could be extreme expensiveness of metals because of extreme scarcity of rich ores in their world. Or perhaps even of not-so-rich ores?

This may present a (con-)planetological challenge.

[threecat]

---

Also, why no metals?

For a civ actively experimenting with heating and melting stuff (glass, ceramics, plastics), discovery of metals and development of advanced metallurgy should be a matter of centuries (if not decades) rather than millennia.

A justification could be extreme expensiveness of metals because of extreme scarcity of rich ores in their world. Or perhaps even of not-so-rich ores?

This may present a (con-)planetological challenge.

The con-island is a coral/limestone based one, but wirth

[zelos]

The reasons metals are so lovely is because they are easily formed to what we want, stones are not.

[basilius]

The con-island is a coral/limestone based one, but wirth

Wirth?

Anyway... how did humans (?) get there? You need a scenario to explain why they get isolated on the island(s) or, if they aren't isolated, to explain why they couldn't obtain metals via trade, and why they had enough time to challenge the limits of metal-free development without being conquered by some non-metal-free guys from the nearest continent.

That, or a planetological challenge.

zelos: stone? people had been discussing kevlar and metal-free comps, did you notice?

[basilius]

More positively...

Lasers. Metal-free lasers must be possible.

Therefore, optical fiber, optical disc drives and whatnot.

Also, this cluster of technologies will probably solve the issue with power transmission.

[Tanni]

More positively...

Lasers. Metal-free lasers must be possible.

Therefore, optical fiber, optical disc drives and whatnot.

Also, this cluster of technologies will probably solve the issue with power transmission.

A laser needs two mirrors for the resonator ...

But Wikipedia tells that if there's very high amplification, you propably don't need mirrors.

[Salmoneus]

More positively...

Lasers. Metal-free lasers must be possible.

Therefore, optical fiber, optical disc drives and whatnot.

Also, this cluster of technologies will probably solve the issue with power transmission.

A laser needs two mirrors for the resonator ...

But Wikipedia tells that if there's very high amplification, you propably don't need mirrors.

And how are you going to get that amplification? What, you're going to isolate xenon, construct an arclamp, and hook it up to a powerful source of electricity, all without using any metal?

[Also not sure about the viability of mass-producing optical fibre without metal, at least at viable prices]

[Tanni]

More positively...

Lasers. Metal-free lasers must be possible.

Therefore, optical fiber, optical disc drives and whatnot.

Also, this cluster of technologies will probably solve the issue with power transmission.

A laser needs two mirrors for the resonator ...

But Wikipedia tells that if there's very high amplification, you propably don't need mirrors.

And how are you going to get that amplification? What, you're going to isolate xenon, construct an arclamp, and hook it up to a powerful source of electricity, all without using any metal?

[Also not sure about the viability of mass-producing optical fibre without metal, at least at viable prices]

Don't quote me, I've only done a statment concerning the laser itself.