What Earth Without People Would Look Like 671
Raynor writes "Imagine a world without people. What if every human being, all 6.5 billion of us, were suddenly abducted and the planet was left to fend for itself? The planet would heal. 'The sad truth is, once the humans get out of the picture, the outlook starts to get a lot better,' says John Orrock, a conservation biologist. Pollution would cease being created. It would remain around for many years, CO2 taking as long as 20,000 years to be restored to it's natural level, but will decrease. Even if we were all whisked away and our nuclear reactors melted down, it would have a surprisingly little effect on the planet. Chernobyl gives hope to this end. 'I really expected to see a nuclear desert there,' says Ronald Chesser, an environmental biologist. 'I was quite surprised. When you enter into the exclusion zone, it's a very thriving ecosystem.' In the grand scheme of the world there would be little evidence of our existence at 100,000 years. The most permanent piece is the radio waves we've emitted of the last century. As the article puts it, 'The humbling — and perversely comforting — reality is that the Earth will forget us remarkably quickly.'"
Is He Looking for Volunteers? (Score:5, Interesting)
If so I'd like to recommend Kim Jong Il
If they could, the other species we share Earth with would surely vote us off the planet.
They could try, but we'd be the ones building the voting machines [slashdot.org].
even though buildings will crumble, their ruins - especially those made of stone or concrete - are likely to last thousands of years. "We still have records of civilisations that are 3000 years old," notes Masterton. "For many thousands of years there would still be some signs of the civilisations that we created. It's going to take a long time for a concrete road to disappear. It might be severely crumbling in many places, but it'll take a long time to become invisible."
Like the ancients, it's how we bury our dead which will be most telling to the next crop of intelligent life to evolve on Earth.
"They're all in these frames of petrified wood with evidence of metal rails, hinges and nails around them. Do you suppose they spun these things and then suffocated inside them? Or was this some way other creatures stored their food? They couldn't possibly be so vain as to try preserving their bodies after they died, HA HA HA!"
'The humbling -- and perversely comforting -- reality is that the Earth will forget us remarkably quickly.'"
Oh, I dunno. The planet itself might, with the help of perhaps another ice age to drive the remnants of our cities into so much rubble.
Re:Is He Looking for Volunteers? (Score:4, Interesting)
Burials are certainly a rich source of information but believe it or not some of the most interesting archeological discoveries have come from ancient rubbish dumps [ox.ac.uk].
Re: (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:5, Interesting)
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/what-if-all-hu
Re: (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.discover.com/issues/feb-05/features/ea
It really blows the other stuff on the topic away, IMO-- it's definitely the first article in Discover to actually bring tears to my eyes.
Re: (Score:4, Insightful)
Because of human values - the same human values that the author is talking about eliminating in such a positive light.
You green guys are so wierd! Earth has no value except to be used by humans - I can understand preservation and conservation in the context of preserving value for future humans, but the humans must come first, not nature (or other animals)!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They have no value because anything that is unused by the valuer has no value by definition - if I am the valuer, and I am human, something I cannot see/use/experience has no value. An Earth without humans has no value to humans - and we are the only ones that really count. If you don't believe that, please shoot yourself - but not the rest of us, please.
Re:Sadly it is true... (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder if they would be able to spell "truly".
Uh, those who kill to live are not simply criminals, although some system of law could make them so. Killing to live is perhaps the only reasonable purpose for killing. (It doesn't make it right, but it does make it understandable.)
But in response to your question, it's not so much a criminal act as an act of negligence - but at the same time, the powers-that-be are doing everything they can to make us forget about the real issues so that they can rape the planet. Since humans are pack animals, this is typically a highly successful venture.
Unfortunately, we have given our planet to the people with money and are unwilling to take it back. We elect the incumbent to congress something like 95% of the time but people always complain about how corrupt government is and how badly we need a change.
Re: Sadly it is true... alien visitors (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No Point! (Score:5, Interesting)
A prime example of this is Nuclear power. A modern nuclear reactor is the safest and cleanest form of power generation around. Research into this area continues to improve the technology, making it safer and easier to use with less and less risk to the environment. Yet there hasn't been a nuclear power plant built in the United States (the world's largest energy consumer) in over 30 years! Why? Because of the eco-religionising of politics and education in the US and the world over the last 50 years. Eco-religion teaches that Nuclear = Bad. Your kids will grow up with extra limbs and three eyed fish will swim through the rivers of Springfield. It's all bullshit, of course, but that's the kind of pap that's being fed to our kids and the general populace. So much so that the NIMBY factor alone has been enough to stop most attempts at reactor building in the last 20 years. I won't even START on the ABSURD level of regulation the nuclear industry has to deal with.
I live in the Western New York area. We just had to deal with a freak October snow storm that crippled our power infrastructure due to heavy snow crushing the trees and ripping down power lines and poles. I spent 6 DAYS without electrical power or heat in my home. While I could have a backup generator to help out, my question is, why in 2006 doesn't every home have a built-in Carbon-Block nuclear power generator? Why are we still dependant on coal-fired power plants and overhead (or buried) WIRES to deliver our power? Because Eco-religion has kept our power generation capabilities in the 1950's.
Until we grow up and dump the Eco-religion for good, hard science, it will remain this way in-perpetuity or until we dont have any other choice but to move forward or return to the 14th century technologically.
Re: Sadly it is true... alien visitors (Score:5, Interesting)
The reality of so called harmony with nature is an existence at the whims of nature, with sickness and death around every corner. Farming, and thus the civilization needed to enable widespread farming with resistance to drought and famine, was so attractive to ancient peoples because it allowed them to break free of an existence dictated by luck and the weather. They didnt give a damn about clearing forests full of animals to make farm land. Humans are, and always have been a fairly selfish lot, with little regard to far long term consequences of our actions. And even if a human culture arose that shunned civilization and lived a life with as little impact on the enviroment as possible, that culture would either quickly be destroyed by other cultures who had learned to bend the planet and it's enviroment to their own purposes.
The best example of this is the American Indians, who although hardly living in perfect harmony with nature as the tour guides would have you believe, largely lacked the tools or manpower to make signifigant changes to their enviroment. When europeans came, they brought with them the rewards of the quite savage raping of the natural European ecosystem (which, after so many centuries of heavy human inhabitance, barely resembles it's original form) and took their land, and either killed them or forced them off into tracts of poor quality land not deemed fit for european settlement. That society would grow so much by using the abundant resources of a hitherto virtually untapped continent to become the dominant military and economic force on the planet, partly through the development of a weapon capable of causing damage to the planet at a rate never before imagined.
Humans. in our lifetimes or any other, will never find "harmony" with nature, and even if a subset does, they will likely be killed by stronger cultures who want the only chunk of land not yet completely exploited.
The only realistic ways to escape total destruction of the planet, in my opinion, is technology. Technology can allow us to enjoy all the benefits of our modern society while at the same time making it easy to avoid excessive damage to the enviroment. Technology could even let us one day harvest resources from other planets, as well as allow us to use existing resources more effeciently. None of that will be accomplished by throwing away our cars and computers and screwing around in huts in the woods.
Re: Sadly it is true... alien visitors (Score:5, Funny)
Aliens will find:
Fscking AOL CDs
Chewing gum stains on all underfoot surfaces
The Duke Nukem Forever development team still hard at work
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The current level of atmospheric CO2 is higher than any in known history. Trying to conserve its current state is not impossible, except perhaps at our current level of technological development. Saying it's impossible is stupid, because nothing that has been observed is impossible, there are simply things we don't understand about it yet (and we cannot achieve sufficient energy output yet, either.) One thing that we know about progress, however, is that it continues.
Re:Sadly it is true... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think some people put up an anti-mankind mindset to make themselves feel like they're hip and intellectual, and I doubt our impact on the environment is as great as global warming alarmists have made it out to be (I notice Slashdot didn't report about the lack of an active hurricane season this year or the recent below-average temperatures).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In your neck of the woods, maybe, maybe. Australia is just right now experiencing the worst drought in a 100 years and I should maybe remind you that it's only spring there. Farmers won't even plant seeds as they know they would be wasted (wheat producers in the rest of the world rejoice, it's only human). September in Europe has been one of the warmest on record...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Pollution = hurting other people (Score:3, Insightful)
This excess anthropomorphising has reached a new heights for slashdrivel.
We are not hurting the planet with pollution. We are primarily hurting each other. As TFA notes, we have left very few permanent traces on the earth. Pollution is - or ought to be - a tort.
PS: and we should continue as the dominant species on the planet. If we don't the chimps will take over.
PPS: and if Mr. Orrock, the writer of the article, thinks that the global demise of the human species is a good idea, I invite him to act locally. Very locally.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What would the earth be like without people? The fluffy pink ponies and unicorns would come out to play. Won't you plese think of the ponies.
How is this a slashdot article let alone a front page one? When I think of the stories I submitted that were rejected then think of this one it just annoys me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pollution = hurting other people (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Pollution = hurting other people (Score:5, Funny)
When the gender ratio exceeds 3:1 mass situational homosexuality begins to kick in.
That's not a bug, that's a feature!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Pollution = hurting other people (Score:5, Funny)
Something tells me it's not a very good idea to hang around slashdot then.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Given some men's propensity for enjoying lesbian porn (but oddly enough not gay porn) this is a problem?
Re:Pollution = hurting other people (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I propose a solution: this representative has to hand over two of his closest family members (wife or children) to be executed in exchange for leaving emissions levels at their current state. If he doesn't think two people are important, let's take away two people from his family.
Re:Pollution = hurting other people (Score:4, Insightful)
How about before we became the dominant species? Not as sexy a question, is it.
A fairer question might be "For how many extinct species is mankind responsible?"
Re:Pollution = hurting other people (Score:5, Insightful)
Every single species vanishes. Go back far enough and every single species that once was is no longer. Everything goes extinct in the end. I am not advocating wanton destruction, but simply pointing out that the "ideal" of dropping the world into a Ziploc bag and preserving it forever is a completely human desire that evolution and natural selection doesn't give a shit about. All the humans could vanish tomorrow and that still wouldn't prevent every single species on Earth from going extinct at one point or another.
So, instead of worshipping and unchanging Earth as some quasi-mystical religion, how about we focus on something that matters? We should be preserving our own asses. Part of saving ourselves might very well mean taking a good hard look at how we are changing the planet. Mother Nature does not give two shits if we cook the Earth and will happily (if nature could feel feelings - which it can't) cook up some happily little bacteria that loves CO2 and warm weather. The humans on the other hand might find it getting mighty uncomfortable.
So screw this quasi-mystical Mother Nature crap. Mother Nature doesn't give a shit about the species of this planet and it doesn't care if all the bunnies die. We are the ones who care. We care if the world becomes inhospitable to us. We should be working to improve the environment not because of some deluded worship of the Earth in its exact current state which is going to pass regardless if we like it or not, but should be working to improve the environment for our own sake.
Re:Just like a lot of things (Score:5, Informative)
It's not the engine, it's the size of the vehicle and the tires. Your "behemoth" Olds isn't 8-10 feet tall and doesn't have 4 foot high tires. I seriously doubt these trucks could break 10mpg even driven slowly. There's too much wind resistance, and the rolling resistance from the tires is immense. And that's when cruising; any acceleration is going to seriously guzzle gas because the wheels/tires weigh so much and have so much inertia to overcome.
I knew a guy at work a few years ago who had a jacked-up Chevy truck, and he claimed he got 10 mpg no matter how or where he drove it, in the city or on the highway. And his didn't even have the gigantic monster offroad tires that a lot of trucks have (with four shocks on each side, etc.), just a standard lift kit. I think my 8-10 estimate is probably quite generous.
Moo (Score:5, Insightful)
But for what purpose? That's like never opening a package, so it never gets finished.
Who would even appreciate it? Is the Earth something so deistic and magical that's its mere existence is good enough by itself? Or, is some alien race (no doubt evilly destroying their own planet) going to come by and appreciate its pristine beauty?
The planet is here, and we are using it. We are becoming better, and making it more capable. To say that to conserve, take notice, and be proactive, to make it last longer, is not only true, but it is helpful. To say, however, that if we were gone it would be better, is an unproven theory, and would remain unproven, being noone would be here to care.
Growth takes a toll somewhere. But not for naught. The Earth is here for us, and we have made quite some progress based on her resources. There's no reason to replace our pride with some pessimistic view that promotes nihilism in some strange way.
Re:Moo (Score:5, Insightful)
The guy basically tells us that his predictions about ecosystems are for crap anyways, so why the heck should we listen to his current one?
Re:Moo (Score:4, Interesting)
Chernobyl was a very minor nuclear disaster as the potential for nuclear disasters goes. The Russians basically got very lucky that when the thing went up and blew the cap off the reactor, said cap happend to land more or less back where it was supposed to be. The incided also did not do much damage to the cement shell of the plant either. Basically most of the radiation has been confined to the pant itself and the reactor, very little got out compared to what might have been. I saw a nova sepecial on it once. They indicated that the radiation levels inside where almost 100 times what they are just outside the door. If other meltdowns happen other places there is no reason at all to think those folks would be as lucky interms of damage confinement and by extension no reason to think those areas would not become nuclear deserts.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
All those inverse-square laws o' physics come in handy sometimes.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Bah! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Earth is here for us
It would be accurate to say that the Earth is here, but to say it is here for a specific species is a bit much because that's an unprovable claim as far as anyone can tell. For example, we might just be here
I always like a challenge. (Score:2)
Not if I can help it!
Humans are Entropy (Score:5, Insightful)
You can view this as we are abnormalities in our ecosystem. We are atypical organisms living beyond what we are supposed to.
Or you can acknowledge that if other organisms were intelligent enough to make their existence better for them (at the expense of others), they would. That's one of the laws of nature and we're just reverting back to our primal instincts. Now, we're fairly civil and modest in reproducing and killing, so we're a bit better than the animals in that respect. If we chose to acknowledge that we're destroying earth for the rest of the organisms, it would probably be both civil and intelligent. Unfortunately, about half of us don't give a shit. Well, that's what we deal with.
Every organism is in competition for resources with every other organism in some way. A symbiosis rarely occurs and when it does, it's usually forced (humans raising cattle for milk).
Is there any scenario we can reach where we won't destroy the environment?
Probably not but, in my opinion, humans are entropy.
And, if you acknowledge the very long history of the earth, we are remarkably new to the earth. The dinosaurs had a longer reign and they are forgotten with the exception of their bones.
Re:Humans are Entropy (Score:5, Insightful)
We're the winners. We rule. As a species, we're at the top of every single food chain on earth, local irregularities notwithstanding (for instance, I would not try to argue this point with a bear, shark or tiger). As long as, as a species, we act smart, we're likely to stay there. That means being responsible, not wrecking things for the next generation, conserving what we have, acting sustainably, and if needed, figuring how to removing unstable elements and memes from our global society (religious fundementalists, dictators with nukes and itchy trigger fingers, etc.). (Oh, and figuring out how to get off this rock long term, so we can beat the sun at its "burn out after a billion years" game too.)
You're free to disagree with me, but I like being on the winning team as a species. I am much happier as a videogame-enjoying human than I would be as an anonymous ferret or weasel or whatever.
If that post had a themesong... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Antibiotic resistant microbes: Win for ecosystem.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Somehow, I can't consider consumption of the world to the point of widespread destruction "winning", but some people never get past just counting the frags.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And if it's not been for us the earth would be greener, less
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a rather arrogant statement to make.
It's a statement of fact.
Could you honestly survive in the wilderness without all your creature comforts, gadgets and microwave meals?
Unless he suffers from a few ailments that would be certain death in a low-tech environment, he can. The key is that he doesn't have to.
Even though we're 'more advanced', is that what will enable you personally to survive? If we've got everything under control, how the fuck do you explain the fact that Hurricane Katrina
Re:Humans are Entropy (Score:4, Insightful)
"Supposed to" as decided by whom? Like any evolved creature, we just do what we can to maximise our own advantage, without any real consideration of the consequences. Then, if a certain route turns out to be sufficiently disadvantageous, we modify our behaviour accordingly. Nothing is ever thought through properly because a) we don't know enough facts to make prediction possible, b) our brains are not sophisticated enough to do it and b) the system is chaotic in the mathemeatical sense anyway, so maybe it just cannot be predicted.
Basically, we push until it gets fucked up, then the balance is shifted in favour of some other behaviour, or perhaps even another species. It's what has always happened, and it's what will always happen. The planet and its ecosystems don't "care", it just IS.
Didn't you hear? We just jumped out of a tree.
We are inefficient. (Score:3, Insightful)
Go back further, during the inquisition and during other times of war, entire libraries with thousands of books were burned, knowledge which could have advanced us much sooner was vanished out of existance due to religious reasons. Now it's still happening, as we are
adding to its deterioration? (Score:3, Insightful)
Then cars came along. Cars did not eat or poop. They didn't chew through street lamp poles while idle or spread disease amongst eachother. Car
A good fictional treatment of this scenario (Score:2)
As you might predict, it never gets off the ground, but if you can get past the almost comic plot, there's a lot of semi-informed commentary and discussion about "what if" and just how quickly the Earth would rebound.
A real treatment of this scenario, apparently (Score:4, Informative)
Here's an enviro-nut case group that wants to eradicate all human life on Earth, including their own cult. (They don't want to do it violently, though -- they just want everyone on Earth to agree not to have children, and let nature take its course.)
Voluntary Human Extinction Movement [vhemt.org]
It could be a hoax website, but it's at least plausible.
And best of all... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And best of all... (Score:5, Insightful)
MOD PARENT FUNNY! (Score:2, Offtopic)
The earth will forget us? (Score:2)
And to think that after all that, the earth is just going to forget about us. Well, not if we dump her, first!
even better! (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine how beautifully clean and preserved the planet would be without life of any type! No more messy leaf litter, buzzing flies around dungheaps, the occasional lightning-sparked forest fire besmudging the sky with ugly smoke...
What about styrofoam? (Score:4, Funny)
Alien perspective? (Score:2, Insightful)
Can nature save itself from Heat Death? No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Then in about 5 billion years after that, the sun will have consumed the Earth and whatever life remains on it.
(Source)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sun_Life.png [wikipedia.org]
This is of course barring large iron metorites or collision with large space bodies and of course a passing of another solor system or galaxy in the meantime.
So if man went away tomorrow... Life would be peachy for nature for a while, but then it would die by itself due to reasons far beyond non-intelligents life control (unless dolphins evolve into space faring creatures on their own)
So nature has to put up with man for a while to we figure out how to get off this rock... Or get used to not being around in a few billion years.
Re: (Score:2)
You're also forgetting that man himself only needed ~50,000 years to mature from animals to advanced civilization...who's to say that nature won't create another creature who will be as advanced as we were in the time the Earth has left?
no (Score:5, Funny)
not to me.
Hold on... (Score:2, Insightful)
What a stupid and lame discussion. Of course we have an impact on the earth. So do insects, cows and bacteria.
The rocks would be happier without the moss.
The questions shouldn't be about what if we all leave, they should be about how can we maintain an environment hospitable to us. That includes reducing pollution and expanding the "wild zones" and "gardens" of "terra firma".
Should we all just stop existing because, oh dear, we might actually have an impact on the rest of the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to seem pedantic here and all, but man is the only animal species that actually destroys ecosystems and causes the extincion of other species that are not in his food chain. We are also the only species that is incapable of existing in an ecological balance. We have an inordinate amount of impact on the planet. Elk and bacteria haven't yet industrialized the production of resources (and the eli
One thing is for sure... (Score:4, Funny)
Here's What The Lower 48 Would Look Like (Score:4, Interesting)
If there were no humans...... (Score:2)
This is funny (Score:4, Insightful)
Uh, what? Why would you expect to see a nuclear desert there? Armed with some research papers and some estimates of how much nuclear material was released, it should have been easy enough to figure out that no, all life will not fail. In fact the plants are doing great (and some of the shorter-lived animals) because there aren't a bunch of people running around destroying them.
Anyway, this is not a big surprise. There are some indications that it might rebound even faster than these studies suggest. One of the major indications is the continued presence of complex animals (like land-based vertebrates) after all the cataclysms which have occurred since they first crawled out of the ocean. I mean we only even know about a few and some of them are major impacts, some are ice ages, etc.
Just as an example the earth has a built-in mechanism for regulating global temperature. As temperatures rise, the ice caps melt, and sea levels rise. This has two major effects: One, it leads to additional evaporation, which causes cooling; the other is that it covers more land, which results in more light being reflected back into space, which also causes cooling. This pitches things towards an ice age; the globe cools, the ice caps refreeze, the sea level falls, evaporation decreases, more land is exposed, the earth retains more sunlight and the planet heats up. The cycle continues.
Of course, we may not be too happy about this, and there are things that we can do to make a difference and maybe (at some point) stabilize the system. Every year we put out (as a species, on average) something like 20 times as much CO2 as active surface volcanoes...
Re: (Score:2)
Heck, I probably get a higher dose going to Aspen for the weekend...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Heh heh:
and
When you get enough moisture in the air, it tends to group up and form floating collections of water vapor which (as far as we know) are held together by some kind of electrostatic force/buildup. We call these "clouds".
Caps and glaciers reflect more energy than the oce
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sigh. I quote:
(from
No Turkeys, no Bananas... (Score:5, Interesting)
Modern "food" turkeys have such huge breasts that they are physically unable to breed without human help. Even if they escaped their pens, they'd be doomed to extinction.
Modern bananas have been bred totally seedless, like various grape varieties. They spread entirely by grafting. So they too would soon die off.
The article mocks Poodles, but I wonder a bit about that. They're actually considered one of the smartest breeds of dog there is, and that must be worth something when a major change in lifestyle is called for.
Re: (Score:2)
Large poodles might have a small chance to survive, although really the only advantage they have is that they're designed to float on water for longer than most other dogs. Small poodles would be well and rightly fucked, they're just defenseless compared to other small dogs. I mean even dachsunds
Sounds like an argument (Score:3, Insightful)
Better? (Score:5, Insightful)
Better or Just Different (Score:2)
All of humanity shares a wonderful ability to briefly transcend their individual lives and apply human qualities across far-reaching matters. That
Of course, we evolved for a REASON (Score:2)
Save the whales? Or save us by saving the whales. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nature is a resilient bitch. We could hardly do the kind of damage necessary to make Earth unlivable by something.
We can, however, make life very unpleasant for mankind. And that's why we need to preserve the environment as best as possible. For us, not the environment.
Of course the planet will be fine (Score:2)
I don't buy it (Score:4, Insightful)
Humans Only Have Power When They Can be Blamed? (Score:2)
This coming from the eco-hystericals who focus entirely on humans as being solely responsible for anything that happens on the entire planet, which is usually bad. That's some lopsided power.
earth first (Score:2)
I think i have heard similar things from earth first terrorists here in boston. The only difference being this "scientist" talks about alien abduction whereas the earth first freaks talk about the more realistic way of doing the same thing, killing thier fellow humans.
The planet would heal (Score:2)
Thinking we have control from the top is a mistake - that is like a giant clam feeling remorse for eating too much plankton. We are simply one part of one large mechanizm that will do whatever it needs to make corrections.
It is only our hubris that allows us to think we are part of the system, yet somehow unique.
We are not unique and it is just a matter of time before the
George Carlin on "saving the planet" (Score:3, Funny)
so what? (Score:4, Insightful)
fine, go hate yourself. but don't think that your self-hatred is a component of all of us or has any power over your fellow man. i for one have faith in humanity in doing the right thing. am i stupid? am i crazy?
i don't know. humanity could fail. but i also know that giving up on humanity entirely guarantees that you will fail. so have some simple faith in your fellow man. or, frankly, shut up. because you're not helping anything with empty pointless doubt and pessimism
constructive criticism is helpful. but empty gloomy pessimism is worth absolutely nothing at all. it is self-fulfilling prophecy to doubt the future of mankind. if you don't believe in the future, you sit there, and you do nothing, and therefore ensure that there is no future. that means you are just damage to be routed around. you're not helpful or useful to anyone else in any way if you don't believe in a future
and you are quite arrogant if you think no one else believes in a future either, that your lack of faith is supposed to have any meaning to anyone around you. lack of faith does not beat faith. lack of faith doesn't grow anything, it doesn't spread, it just dies. it's just damage to be routed around. faith is something that creates and grows and spreads. faith always beats lack of faith, because it acts and creates. lack of faith just sits there, inert and useless
join in humanity in faith, or go away, and shut up. seriously, if you don't believe in the future of humanity, why are you talking? there's no future right? so what's the point of trying to add anything? you're not being constructive. being constructive is based on the supposition that it's the worth the effort, that there is a future worth working towards
so make up your mind:
but to continue talking, and not believe in a future, is not a logically cohesive position for anyone to take on the subject of humanity. it's an unfounded and incoherent position in life. so work it out, teenaged human, and get back to us later when you are worth something to yourself and others and have words worth our time for us to listen to
Just plain stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Little does he know. During the Ordovician CO2 levels were 13x to 17x higher than now. The earth slipped into a deep freeze snowball phase during this time. Throughout the Carboniferous CO2 levels were much higher than now. Back in the PreCambrian CO2 was much higher than now... up into the 80,000 ppm range in fact compared to 370 ppm now.
So not only is the story just plain tripe - it is also based on a poor understanding of the history of the planet.
I always thought the Dinosaurs were the most dominant life form. Give me a break!
Find out for yourself: EdGCM (Score:3, Interesting)
So if you want to find out what the earth would be like without humans, you can do so yourself. Download, double-click to install, and then...
You can use the values for paleo-climate to get CO2, N2O, and other greenhouse gasses from pre-industrial and pre-human times. You can set up trends (changes in inputs) for the future. You can take modern values and then at the year 2010 have everything drop to pre-human values. Run the model for a few hundred years (a day or two on a modern computer), and you'll see how long until the Earth reaches equilibrium.
Disclaimer: I'm the project developer.
This was covered before the author was even born (Score:3, Interesting)
Nuclear power plants would cause real pollution (Score:3, Interesting)
If humankind suddenly disappeared, quite a few nuclear reactors would spin
completely out of control (can't really trust the automated shutdown systems,
- see Forsmark).
The resulting burning nuclear cores might result in severe long term
contamination of large areas. This has not been accounted for in this
timeline.
Older article (Score:4, Interesting)
Eventually, the dam's power systems would notice nobody was around and close all the penstock gates. But the dam needs power to hold the gates closed, and it's no longer making power. Once external power fails (yes, electricity flows to the dam as well as from) and the battery backups fail, the penstock gates will open about a quarter of the way, and the turbines will start to spin up. But the breakers have all tripped, so there's no electricity coming out of the generators. This is important, because without electric power, you can't lubricate the generators' bearings. So after a while the bearings seize, which is guaranteed to be dramatic.
After the powerhouse destroys itself, the dam itself will probably survive until the end of the next ice age. That's when a lake the size of Montana eventually bursts through the ice and about half its contents slam into the dam all at once, tearing its top off and chewing apart the rock all around it. There will be enough rubble left over for Lake Mead to partially and permanently reform, at a third its original depth.
Has anybody else ever read this article? That's all I remember from it.
why does this make news? Seems obvious... (Score:4, Interesting)
without power ALL of the massively inefficient electric devices STOPPED. In doing so, they stopped producing massive amounts of heat. All of those building AC units, all the electric motors, and a plethora of other devices.
I was trapped in bumper to bumper traffic because people in this country get all freaked out and impatient. So, they don't handle the the whole "when the traffic light is out treat it as an all way stop" thing.
In any event, I watched the temperature on a bank display. In the course of about 30 minutes it drop about 5-7 degrees and the wind picked up. Additionally, it was much quiter. It was wonderful. I am not saying we should just drop all technology. I am simply saying that most of our devices are incredibly inefficient and it seems obvious what would happen on this planet if all humans just vanished from the face of the Earth is very straight forward.
The temperature would start to drop, dramatically. The wind would pick up and in a matter of a few years the Earth would start to reclaim the spaces we used to inhabit.
I disagree with the article in one area. I don't think it would take tens of thousands of years. I think it would happen MUCH faster then that.
That's my two or three cents.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I thought Ben Affleck vanishing was saving us.
Incorrect (Score:3, Insightful)
Adios, Amoebas! (Score:4, Insightful)
One of Pianka's earliest points was a condemnation of anthropocentrism, or the idea that humankind occupies a privileged position in the Universe. He told a story about how a neighbor asked him what good the lizards are that he studies. He answered, "What good are you?"
Pianka hammered his point home by exclaiming, "We're no better than bacteria!"
I've heard estians, aka estholes (est, renamed Landmark Forum) say "We're all just tubes."
SPOILER: Have barf bag ready as you read:
The tubes thing refers to the human digestive system - our sole purpose in life is to eat and shit.
The "environmentalist" movement was taken over by socialists/anti-capitalists (if it looks like they have more than one agenda, it's because they do), but even more, they want to reprogram everyone's mind, just like a cult. "We're all no better than bacteria."
They're debasing the whole of humanity. How quaint.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What, apart from the mice and the dolphins?
Seriously, mineral deposits. We take huge deposits of minerals and suck out the pure minerals we need. Then we spread 'em around the whole world in the products we produce. Finally, we lay them to rest in garbage dumps, landfills, etc, mixed in with a whole bunch of other relatively pure substances. Now assuming an intelligent speci