Life After Humans

[FordSVT]

The world is a better place because humans are in it.

that's a laugh.

That's such a bullshit, self-hating, pessimistic attitude that completely ignores the accomplishments we as a species have brought about. We're the pinnacle of intelligence on this planet, like it or not, for good or ill, and I think we're a remarkable creature.

I'm well aware of the evils of man, but I'm also aware of the good. Get some perspective, EMO.

 

[Trekker4747]

The world is a better place because humans are in it.

that's a laugh.

That's such a bullshit, self-hating, pessimistic attitude that completely ignores the accomplishments we as a species have brought about. We're the pinnacle of intelligence on this planet, like it or not, for good or ill, and I think we're a remarkable creature.

I'm well aware of the evils of man, but I'm also aware of the good. Get some perspective, EMO.

While we as a species have accomplished much I don't think the world is better off with us in it.

I'm sure more than a handul of animal species will agree with that, the ruining of beautiful landscapes with cities, and pollution all are pretty good examples of how the Earth (herself) isn't better of with us here.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

I think you might be referring to The History Channel's program which I believe had the same title as your thread. It was an interesting special, but as much as I can ascertain, it's more or less a complete rip-off. There was a book out a year or so ago called The World Without Us which dealt with exactly the same subject. I've been meaning to amazon it for a few months now, but spare time is tough and I seem to keep finding other things to spend money on. It's a pretty good deal on Amazon though, and what I've read of it at bookstores seems hell of interesting.

I'm currently reading The World Without Us. I decided to buy it after seeing the History Channel program. I also watched the NatGeo one: I thought it was better, substance-wise, but I didn't care for the presentation itself. With all of the zooming around, I kind of got a headache trying to watch it.

what the heck is NatGeo?

EDIT: never mind I just realized that this is Gen-X-ish for "National Geographic"....

NatGeo was the way the channel was named on the Sky EPG (IPG) when I had it.

 

[Trekker4747]

I'm currently reading The World Without Us. I decided to buy it after seeing the History Channel program. I also watched the NatGeo one: I thought it was better, substance-wise, but I didn't care for the presentation itself. With all of the zooming around, I kind of got a headache trying to watch it.

what the heck is NatGeo?

EDIT: never mind I just realized that this is Gen-X-ish for "National Geographic"....

NatGeo was the way the channel was named on the Sky EPG (IPG) when I had it.

It's what it's called here too, and I suspect it's as he said "Gen-X"ish way of streamlining the name of the network -although I think some of the promos still call it National Geographic.

Me, I just said "NatGeo" because it's easier to type than "National Geographic" and, I had thought, was still clear enough to know what I was talking about.

 

[Christopher]

I don't think it's "Gen-X"-related, it's just adspeak. Shorter names are easier to promote. That's why so many movies these days have acronyms for titles, why movie subtitles have fallen out of favor, why only Lucas and Spielberg have the clout to get away with naming a movie Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I'm sure there are executives who are aching to rename it IJ4.

And part of it is also the influence of the Internet, the way online posters use abbreviations and shorthand for things all the time. I don't think "Gen X" has any unique claim to being active on the Internet.

 

[Trekker4747]

I don't think it's "Gen-X"-related, it's just adspeak.

Eh, probably not. But whenever I hear something needlesly shortened or abbreviated I just roll my eyes as it seems to me to be pandering to a shoter-attention span audiance which more often than not covers Gen-X.

 

[T'Bonz]

I'm a boomer and I call it Nat-Geo.

 

[zenophite]

I'm a gen-xer and I like it the old way but then again i was never into the flashy branding thing. I agreee with Trekker4747 , it does seem to evoke the soundbite-short attention span culture that's become ever more prevalent.

That's such a bullshit, self-hating, pessimistic attitude that completely ignores the accomplishments we as a species have brought about. We're the pinnacle of intelligence on this planet, like it or not, for good or ill, and I think we're a remarkable creature.

I'm well aware of the evils of man, but I'm also aware of the good. Get some perspective, EMO.

Yeesh. Tone it down a tad. Don't get so upset that people disagree with you.

Anything "good" that comes with the human presence on earth is "good" only in human terms. all of our accomplishments don't mean squat to the rest of the lifeforms on the planet - in fact many of our "great accomplishments" cause great harm either directly or thanks to unintended consequences. So you can get into all the self adoring humanism you want but we're still a race of selfish meddlers... you must be a RTD Dr Who fan i bet....

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Anything "good" that comes with the human presence on earth is "good" only in human terms. all of our accomplishments don't mean squat to the rest of the lifeforms on the planet

BFD. Every lifeform that has ever existed works to better *itself*, many times at the expense of other lifeforms. That's the way things are. It's unavoidable. For all the harm we do to animals, they can (and often do) harm us right the fuck BACK! So pardon me if I don't shed a tear here.

I'm not saying we *should* harm animals, of course. Reasonable steps can and should be taken to ensure their safety. But to say humans are scum because some animals get hurt, is short-sighted and speciesist. I don't hate animals because they hurt us, so I don't see a point in hating humans because we harm *them*.

 

[T'Bonz]

I got it from the channel itself. I was watching something last night and they said "Nat-Geo".

As for the show, it was interesting. This one was a shade better than the other one. Rather amazing that two channels did basically the same topic so close together.

The book was good too, but it spun off from what the world would be after we were gone to a more political thing. Not uninteresting, but I think the author lost focus.

I liked the Nat-Geo website on their show. I spent 40 minutes having fun poking around it, watching the clips, reading, etc. before the show's airdate.

 

[Christopher]

What I'm finding interesting about the book is its broader discussion of the impact humans have had on the world, positive and negative alike. I was particularly intrigued by the chapter on Africa, his discussion of how humans have been an integral part of the savannah biosphere for as long as we and it have existed, and that segregating "pure nature" from human activity through the use of nature preserves is actually harmful in some ways. There used to be a symbiosis between elephants and human-herded cattle; the elephants would eat the trees, allowing grass to grow, and then the cattle would eat the grass so that the trees could grow back and let the elephants return, so you got this nice cyclical symbiosis.

So I like it that the book isn't just exploring the hypothetical scenario of what would happen in our absence, but is using that to illustrate a broader point about how integral we have always been to nature, how we can't pretend it's something separate from us.

 

[zenophite]

BFD. Every lifeform that has ever existed works to better *itself*, many times at the expense of other lifeforms.

Life forms attempt to survive and that's it (as far as I know)

For all the harm we do to animals, they can (and often do) harm us right the fuck BACK! So pardon me if I don't shed a tear here.

Are you being serious or is this a put on? Last time I checked rocky the squirrel wasn't build a nuclear reactor, strip mining or dumping tons of toxic chemicals into the oceans.
But its all even because, after all, if you go into the woods you can get bit by a snake....? Does that really make logical sense to you?

But to say humans are scum because some animals get hurt, is short-sighted

did you see me post "scum of the earth"? Stop putting words in my mouth and being a drama queen. I said human beings meddle and meddle we do because of those big brains that evolved to consciousness and the ability to reason.

and speciesist.

Huh? do you mean anthropocentric....?

I don't hate animals because they hurt us, so I don't see a point in hating humans because we harm *them*.

Who said anything about hating humans? Understanding the role we play and not patting ourselves on the back for being the universe's golden children is called being humble.

There you go with those pesky animals harming us again... I don't know...last time I went deer hunting I don't recall seeing any of the bucks with remington 700s just like mine. It's been awhile for me have you been hunting lately?
Seriously Babaganoosh how can you really claim that the harm that is done to the natural world as whole by the human species is balanced out by the random attacks that happen to humans every so often?

And as for "hating humans" you came up with those words not me. Ah life in the PC culture..... where anything even remotely perceived as critical is called "hate speech"

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

is called being humble.

There you go with those pesky animals harming us again... I don't know...last time I went deer hunting I don't recall seeing any of the bucks with remington 700s just like mine. It's been awhile for me have you been hunting lately?
Seriously Babaganoosh how can you really claim that the harm that is done to the natural world as whole by the human species is balanced out by the random attacks that happen to humans every so often?

Never heard of shark attacks? Dog maulings? Bear attacks?

As for hunting: 1) Animals hunt each other too, you know. 2) Even when we do it, it's called "thinning the herd". Look it up.

And as for "hating humans" you came up with those words not me.

You implied it.

Ah life in the PC culture..... where anything even remotely perceived as critical is called "hate speech"

I can dish it out as well as I can take it.

 

[zenophite]

Never heard of shark attacks? Dog maulings? Bear attacks?

Great Gods.... you are serious! But you still didn't answer the question. Do you think it reasonable to compare these to the destructive forces unleashed by human beings?

As for hunting: 1) Animals hunt each other too, you know. 2) Even when we do it, it's called "thinning the herd". Look it up.

You propose to give me a lecture on the nature of hunting? Learn a little humility. When was the last time you killed, skinned and cleaned a buck Babaganoosh ? I don't have to "look it up" because I can say I've lived it.

You implied it.

No... that was the conclusion that you came up with from what I said, based on whatever your particular preconceived notions are about the type of person that is saddened at the net effect of human culture on this planet.

I can dish it out as well as I can take it.

Shark attacks vs. Toxic waste? I'd say if you are intent on patting yourself on the back for dishing out a clever argument then try again.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

When was the last time you killed, skinned and cleaned a buck Babaganoosh ? I don't have to "look it up" because I can say I've lived it.

You are a hunter, and *you* are the one who's ragging on your own species like this?

 

[QCzar]

The conclusions drawn by both these shows seem to lend credence to those who suggest that nature and time can in fact wipe away most signs of a civilization's existence. It causes me to reflect, not on the future but on the past. While this speculative projection may indeed by based on science, it's still largely conjecture.

But every generation or so it seems that archaeologists discover a new civilization or new aspects of known ones. This makes me wonder whether we can ever truly know the depths our ancestors reached. The ultimate irony being that, according to this thinking, the more advanced we get, the more tenuous our hold on permanence. Thus a relatively primitive culture like the Egyptians will show signs of its existence for eons, whereas the most advanced of our modern cultures will fade within a few centuries of a fall of man (even if humans continue to exist).

Thus, some of the wild claims (or conclusions) made about civilizations of the distant past may, for all we know, have some truth in them. Maybe there was an Atlantis, with more advanced alloys and materials than the cultures around them. These materials may have crumbled to dust even before the time of Christ (as these shows posit). Without tangibility, their history may have become legend and that legend eventually became myth. All truth fades into the mists of time.

Maybe the ancients developed something akin to a telephone, that'll one day be unearthed in some far away dig site, which may reveal just how advanced they were. This begs the question: Can scientists infer from the mere existence of an advanced object the entire advancement of a civilization? I suspect not.

It's a romantic idea, but one that itself, like those in Life After Humans/Population Zero, is largely informed speculation.

 

[Christopher]

Thus, some of the wild claims (or conclusions) made about civilizations of the distant past may, for all we know, have some truth in them. Maybe there was an Atlantis, with more advanced alloys and materials than the cultures around them. These materials may have crumbled to dust even before the time of Christ (as these shows posit). Without tangibility, their history may have become legend and that legend eventually became myth. All truth fades into the mists of time.

Maybe the ancients developed something akin to a telephone, that'll one day be unearthed in some far away dig site, which may reveal just how advanced they were. This begs the question: Can scientists infer from the mere existence of an advanced object the entire advancement of a civilization? I suspect not.

It's a romantic idea, but one that itself, like those in Life After Humans/Population Zero, is largely informed speculation.

It's profoundly unlikely. Sure, materials exposed to the air would be eroded, but as the World Without Us book points out, stuff that was buried could last far longer. Ceramics are chemically analogous to fossils; glass is virtually indestructible; cast iron could last indefinitely underground. And then there are plastics. If there had been an advanced civilization in the past, we would undoubtedly have unearthed relics of advanced technology by now.

Not to mention the other human artifacts the book points out, the effects of our civilization on the chemistry of the atmosphere and oceans, on the exchange of species from region to region, etc. If there had been an industrial civilization, say, 10,000 years ago, then ice cores from 10,000-year-old strata within glaciers would preserve its pollution. If there had been a super-advanced culture in the distant past, we absolutely would know about it by now.

Besides, such an advanced civilization would've had to develop out of more primitive ones that built with durable stone and bronze. So by your own logic, we would certainly have evidence of those even more ancient civilizations as well.

 

[QCzar]

Besides, such an advanced civilization would've had to develop out of more primitive ones that built with durable stone and bronze. So by your own logic, we would certainly have evidence of those even more ancient civilizations as well.

Good points. I still believe there may have been an "Atlantis" that inspired the myth, just not a super-advanced one.

And overall, that's where I come down on this. I just can't believe all this crap we've made is just going to melt into the planet. What about the stuff down in Antarctica? What about the large cities in desert nations? I understand the fragility of manmade stuff, but I think a lot of it will still be around.

Another question then would be how would a future civilization regard our trinkets. Would they need to arrive at a highly industrialized state to appreciate our advancements (like cell-phones), or would they figure it out and use it to (as in so much sci-fi) actually help them to advance more quickly?

For reference, look how long it took us to figure out the Antikythera mechanism.

 

[Trekker4747]

The specials I saw seemed to suggest structures in arid enviroments, like Vegas, will hold up but still ultimately fail.

 

[Christopher]

Good points. I still believe there may have been an "Atlantis" that inspired the myth, just not a super-advanced one.

I always find it surprising that people would think that. Plato wrote a couple of allegories about a place he called Atlantis, and they were clearly meant as social commentaries. There's absolutely no reference to such a place anywhere outside of these two works of allegorical fiction by a single classical author. Nobody assumes that Swift's Lilliput, Brobdingnag and Laputa were based on real civilizations, or that More's Utopia was. It's accepted that their authors fabricated them to make philosophical points. So I don't see any reason why Plato's allegorical invention should be taken any differently.

At most, Plato may have been inspired by tales of destroyed Minoan-era island cultures in the Aegean, but it was a loose inspiration at best.

And overall, that's where I come down on this. I just can't believe all this crap we've made is just going to melt into the planet. What about the stuff down in Antarctica? What about the large cities in desert nations? I understand the fragility of manmade stuff, but I think a lot of it will still be around.

You're underestimating the power of erosion. Wind does a lot of damage to buildings over the fullness of time. And it would be even worse in a desert, with all that sand abrading everything or just plain burying and crushing it. As for "the stuff down in Antarctica," it's basically just Quonset huts and the like, isn't it? Not really meant for permanence. Without maintenance, it would be torn apart by the wind eventually, if it wasn't crushed first under the weight of accumulating snow and ice.

Of course, as I've said, some materials could be preserved if buried underground, and eventually discovered by archaeologists of whatever species next develops civilization on Earth. But very little evidence of our presence would survive on the surface of the planet. And even a lot of the buried stuff would be ground to powder by the advance and retreat of glaciers.

Another question then would be how would a future civilization regard our trinkets. Would they need to arrive at a highly industrialized state to appreciate our advancements (like cell-phones), or would they figure it out and use it to (as in so much sci-fi) actually help them to advance more quickly?

It's unlikely the innards of anything like a cell phone would survive over geologic time. The metal contacts and circuits would probably corrode away pretty quickly in the grand scheme of things, and any buried cell phone would be crushed by the weight of the earth above it. Maybe the plastic covers would survive in fragments. Although given all the plastics we've littered the planet with, it may be only a matter of time before a plastic-eating microbe evolves and gobbles up most of the polymer evidence of our modern civilization (maybe including the buried stuff -- microbes often live deep underground).