So I was reading ***NOT A SPOILER***Ryouriban http://www.novelupdates.com/series/ryouriban/ and it came to this part where they were in the country of Newbyst(not a spoiler) and happened to mention the phenomenal stewardship of the ruling class over the countries natural resources. And this got me to thinking. Over the course of the last, let's say 2000 or so years, had the societies and cultures of our world had a better understanding and appreciation for the limited nature of our natural resources, anything from ores, fossil fuels, minerals, even organic supposedly replenishable resources such as lumber, water, oxygen, plant and animal life, how might our history have unfolded differently? Just as a jumping off point, look at some of the major technological and scientific advances of the last 2000 years, looking at the resources necessary to experiment and design with an eye towards conservation, how many things might not have been built, how far along might we be technologically. Cars, planes, trains, all massive uses of resources, even paved roads. Then you have wars, guns made modern warfare possible. But if every country, every group of people were worried about what the legacy they might leave behind for their descendants in terms of available resources, would guns have ever become viable, in their current form or another. While bullets might seem small and a small drain on resources, when you consider how many millions and billions might have been used just by the U.S.A. alone since the start of World War I, it's unbelievable. So I thought I'd reach out to the community here and see what kind of theories they could come up with on what would essentially be an alternate history of the world. If you really get on board with this, you don't have to start on or after 1 AD, you can work with before, jump back to the pyramids, to Alexander the Great, I just thought AD was a good starting point since we're looking at periods of time where we started using more resources, paving, smithing, creating, population increases, etc. And, just in case you're the paranoid sort, I have no intent of writing a novel at this or any future time containing the ideas discussed herein without written consent of the poster espousing the ideas. Not that I plan to write anything, just covering bases. So no worries that I'm letting you story build for me and then stealing your ideas for anything.
Well, just throwing this out there; if all of us were so concerned of leaving behind resources for our future generations, we wouldn't get much of anything done, or so i think. Thinking about a full scenario....
Limit the population to a level where the drain on resources is sustainable. Spread every known method to increase crop yields and educate people on the dangers of unrestricted population growth. Illustrate this point by using a small animal that will kill and eat it's own kind if it gets hungry enough by putting them in a closed environment and adding more and more until the closed ecosystem collapses and the last creature dies of starvation because the entire area has been wiped clean of resources. Not that any of this matters, because people are stupid.
If those country know that the resource is limited, the more they would plunder it to prevent other people from getting it.
Can't think of scenario where they would have considered about the future... The people of the past/ancient times were hungry, poor, desperate and many lives were on stake... So what ever option they got they would invest any resources they had to get results... Latter on these resources turned into greed. Either to oppose others or to save themselves. So it later turned into power hungry people... But now that the economy and wars for most part is stabilized herein modern times... People have time to think about future and whatnot...
This is really hard to imagine... I keep writing and deleting for the last 30 minutes.... But if the resource is scarce, people tend will monopolize the limited resource, not protecting it. If the resource is abundant but they worry about sustainability then they will heavily regularized the use, even in a ritualistic-like rigor. Like : to cut a tree to secure a lumber, the woodcutter will choose only the oldest tree, and think that cutting young tree is blasphemous. Then he will cut the tree in such way so that when it fall it won't disturb any tree. Then after the trunk had been uprooted, the woodcutter will plant a new tree seedlings while offering prayer. Another example: Metal is considered as a sacrilegious objects, any objects made from it are used as efficient as possible. When a metal tool is broken beyond repair it will be taken to a large temple where it will be repurified and reborn as a new tool in a ritualistic procedure (with the worshiper chant and cheer when the tool thrown over fire of the furnace). Another example: Wasting food is considered as taboo. Serving food in large number more than one needed is considered as hubris. Man consult local priest-nutritionist to consult the divine food table so that their daily requirement can be fulfilled with he lowest food amount and the lowest resource consumption as possible (so no grazing animal - Cow had really low energy convention rate from grass), so people only eat insects (insect had very efficient food energy conversion rate) or plankton-eating fish (only fish that eat plankton, fish that eat other fish is a taboo) and poultries are a expensive delicacy. Why religion? Because Human in history tend incorporate religion in their everyday conduct. Pure secularity is only something human devised in the last century. Even on Renaissance and Humanist movement, people still had religious belief, although they didn;t need to belief in God per se.
If the resources are finite and having governments control the resources, what is to stop the government going, I want to secure resources for my people and to make sure there is enough resources for future generations, I'm going to wipeout those people over there and take their resources as a security to guard against population growth.
Ok, I think something got lost in translation. I'm not asking whether or not the government could be trusted to act appropriately with limited resources, or how to get them to do it. I'm asking how history would have changed if society as a whole, this includes governments already acted appropriately in regards to finite resources. I'm curious about how our personal, national, and world history would have changed. Would the plane or the car still have been invented. Would we have smart phones and computers and video game consoles, fast food, and easy access to paper. Even the printing press is suspect in this scenario. I did like @Yukkuri Oniisan take on how resource management, ie. conservation would have become a sort of religious institution. But take it further. Would we be looking at government or religious control of population limits. What could earn a person/family a chance to have a child or more than one child. Is everyone entitled to offspring or just a select few and if so, how is that few determined. By lottery, occupation, political connection? Would contraceptives have made greater strides in a world with more limited resource usage or would we practice abstinence more assiduously? Keep in mind that using contemporary mentalities won't work. While we may think about some things the same, a society that has been driven by conservation for 2000+ years will likely have different mental attitudes towards many if not all subjects.
Well... Let's see.... There are some way to do this: Natural contraception would be drank like a tea. Not only for women, but also for men. Do you know that by drinking papaya leaves extract you can temporarily decrease your sperm quantity and quality? Menstruation taboo would be greater. The fertility window would generally be avoided for sexual acts (except on certain month or year when the local genealogist said that it was the beneficence time to reproduce, like when an old people died). A city generally fixed in a lucky number, like the city of Neo-Old-Retro-New-London can only have 100,000 people of working age at a single time. (people above working age is not counted, old people will leave the city and go to a "retirement city"). The genealogist will make sure that the number of childbirth would gave continuous supply of fresh working age worker to replace the retiree. Childbirth is dangerous with undeveloped medicine (mother death rate only significantly decreasing in 20th century), so the number of childbirth is limited to 2 per woman, except in special cases like when the population plummeted due to war, disease, or disaster. The number of boy vs girl would be maintained in a rigid ratio (107 male : 100 female). The extra male function as security insurance extra worker etc. The ratio is maintained by selective infanticide. The killed baby was considered as society martyr and properly mourned (there even a monument for it) and their names would be inherited by the next batch of children. Any baby shown signs of genetic defect would also be mercy killed. The babies was killed using high dose cyanide compound and anesthetics to ensure they get their proper rest without inflicting any inhuman pain. Childbirth would be spanned between of 5-10 year, so that they could nurture the children properly. When the child can take care of themselves to some degree (watched by a cadre of older generation children), then the mothers can gave birth to new babies. Childcare thus tend to be socialized and not personalized. Because of this, a city/settlement are basically a giant family, although birth mother and father is also held as an important people to a person. The only one permitted to procreate are the "legal couple" established by a council of gene-priest. The priest will examine the newlywed from their appearance to guarantee "pure"offspring (of course no real genetic or mendelian knowledge required) what constitute "pure" will depend on each community. Other who deemed "Unpure" can form couples but was prevented from procreating by mandatory sterilization or contraception. If the resource was declined or unsustainable for the current number of population, further population growth would be restricted (except for select few, to ensure there still some generation that can procreate in the future) and some segment of population deemed undesirable were asked to voluntary leave the settlement. If they resist, then well... If trade network is posssible (somehow), then they could trade (but in a world concerned with sustainability, producing a surplus product is an anathema, except for a justified reason). So, the last option is to raid neighboring or enemy settlement, if it succeed, they got new resource to be used. if it failed and many people died, the demographics pressure will be lessened. Well, that's just several hypothetical option a society with demographic concern maintained their population without conducting "Cruelty" like human sacrifice or geriatric killing...