Yet Another Cycling Forum
Off Topic => The Pub => Arts and Entertainment => Topic started by: D0m1n1c Burford on 27 May, 2008, 12:27:50 pm
-
Did anyone else see this? Really interesting documentary that showed the effects on our planet if the human species went extinct. It showed how our man made structures such as buildings, bridges, roads etc would all eventually collapse. Eventually, there would be no trace that our species had ever existed. It also showed which species of animals would survive in our wake.
-
The great pyramid of Cheops would last the longest, apparently!
-
Eventually, there would be no trace that our species had ever existed.
Hmm. Not sure about that. At the very least there would be a nice thin layer of irradiated material that would keep the cockroach scientists guessing...
-
It was pretty interesting viewing - it's just a shame it was CGI'd to death. And I found the VO downright irritating.
But there were loads of points of interest - who'd have thought the Hoover Dam would last so long? And I've never considered how ephemeral our culture is compared to, say, stone tablets.
-
...Eventually, there would be no trace that our species had ever existed...
You might find this book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/World-Without-Us-Alan-Weisman/dp/0753513579/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211888787&sr=8-1) interesting. The billions of tons of plastic created in the last fifty years will be around for a very long time, because bacteria have not evolved the ability to break down the petrochemical polymers of which it is comprised :(
-
Mines. Mines would really confuse the cockroach geologists.
It's only the absence of mine-sign that proves that dinosaurs didn't have a technological culture...
-
...Eventually, there would be no trace that our species had ever existed...
You might find this book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/World-Without-Us-Alan-Weisman/dp/0753513579/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211888787&sr=8-1) interesting. The billions of tons of plastic created in the last fifty years will be around for a very long time, because bacteria have not evolved the ability to break down the petrochemical polymers of which it is comprised :(
That looks like great read!
-
Mines. Mines would really confuse the cockroach geologists.
It's only the absence of mine-sign that proves that dinosaurs didn't have a technological culture...
One dinosaur scientist to another, as the radioactive ash rains down, "I told you there was a fundamental design flaw with those iridium-fuelled reactors"
-
The great pyramid of Cheops would last the longest, apparently!
Longer than the Toyota HiLux pickup?
(Boggles)
-
I didn't see it, but wandering the Cornish coves this weekend and looking at the many layers of history in the cliffs did get me thinking along the lines of which layer would be all that was left of us, at some point in the future.
-
Will the whole surface of the Earth be recycled in subduction zones? Is the surface of the Moon stable? What processes are acting on that stuff left over from the Apollo missions?
Damon.
-
Will the whole surface of the Earth be recycled in subduction zones? Is the surface of the Moon stable? What processes are acting on that stuff left over from the Apollo missions?
Damon.
In theory, but as there are sedimentary rocks over 3 billion years old, it'll take quite a while before subduction erases us from the geological record. Hmm. Some of the sedimentary rock being laid down today probably won't get subducted before the Sun goes kablooey (technical term), so geological evidence of us could be around for a loooooooooong time.
No subduction on the moon, so you're really only left with meteor strikes/visitin scrap metal merchants/expoding nuclear waste dumps.
-
What processes are acting on that stuff left over from the Apollo missions?
Sunlight and meteorites, mainly.
-
I found it a bit irritating, but also very interesting.
What irritated:
Much was made of the fate of poor old Fido, trapped in the house, but no mention of farm animals. Cows would explode and everything else die - except sheep I guess. But maybe that would have lead to hard questions about farming practices...
It was very US-centric, despite a few bits about the London Underground & the Thames Barrier. No mention of the gas supply network under our streets which might hasten the destruction of cities a bit, I felt
I was unconvinced that the generators in the Hoover dam would supply power for years; they might keep spinning, but I bet the grid wouldn't take it and the station itself would disconnect
I don't think that the dose rates near Chernobyl were high enough to kill all plant life :). Mammals, OK, in the hot spots.
They kept saying that after 5 years the roads would have become greened right over (with nice graphics) but the city of Pripyat seemed still to be mostly there after 20 years.
</pedant>
What was good was the way that the planet got on with it after we'd gone and, frankly, seemed like a much nicer place with a much brighter future. Food for thought.
-
What was good was the way that the planet got on with it after we'd gone and, frankly, seemed like a much nicer place with a much brighter future.
You have just qualified as either a Dr Who or a James Bond baddie.
-
You might find this book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/World-Without-Us-Alan-Weisman/dp/0753513579/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211888787&sr=8-1) interesting.
I'm actually reading the book at the moment, only read a couple of chapters though - it puts me to sleep quicker than a bottle of Shiraz ;)
-
I found it a bit irritating, but also very interesting.
[...]
What was good was the way that the planet got on with it after we'd gone and, frankly, seemed like a much nicer place with a much brighter future. Food for thought.
Yes, it was a bit mixed.
-
What was good was the way that the planet got on with it after we'd gone and, frankly, seemed like a much nicer place with a much brighter future.
You have just qualified as either a Dr Who or a James Bond baddie.
;D
You know, I had that same thought when i was watching it. I realised that I might be routing for the baddie in the next Hollywood blockbuster ;)
-
Presumably the trees would take over Britain (exwept high moorland) within 10 years. Things like ash are rather good at seeding themselves.
-
I dunno
The field behind our house has been left abandoned since 1985, and wasn't farmed before that. It has some thickets of shrub here and there (mostly where hedges of adjacent houses have encroached) and a couple of big trees, but the rest is nettles and long scraggy grassy stuff which all dies down in the winter. Maybe the rabbits and deer are sufficient to keep it clear.
(http://www.bosphorus.f2s.com/field.jpg)
Taken in early March. It's a lot more green now :)
-
not having seen this, what circumstances pushed us over the edge to an exctinction event?
-
not having seen this, what circumstances pushed us over the edge to an exctinction event?
Televisual licence I do believe. We simply vanished...
-
...I realised that I might be routing for the baddie in the next Hollywood blockbuster ;)
No kids? Then join me as a member of VHEMT (http://www.vhemt.org/). Although I suspect we will always be outnumbered by the slaves of instinct...
But there is a solution to that problem too: Pentti Linkola (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentti_Linkola)'s the man :)
-
not having seen this, what circumstances pushed us over the edge to an exctinction event?
Televisual licence I do believe.
Oh come on !
It's less than £150 a year.
-
Televisual licence I do believe. We simply vanished...
Hmmmm. I don't have a television licence. I wonder if that makes me invisible to the powers that be (http://vonu.org/aboutus.aspx)?
<edit> Arse! Second, as usual...
-
There is this unspoken, unjustifiable assumption that, while other organisms are merely part of nature, human kind is some kind of imposition on nature, for either good or evil, depending on the point of view.
-
There is this unspoken, unjustifiable assumption...
I don't see any other species wrecking the planet.
-
There is this unspoken, unjustifiable assumption...
I don't see any other species wrecking the planet.
I'd like to see us have as big an impact as those bloody blue-green algae :P
-
There is this unspoken, unjustifiable assumption...
I don't see any other species wrecking the planet.
We're not. We are doing what any living organism does, increasing to the limit of sustainability. In terms of numbers we are a successful organism, largely dominant on this planet. If we over-graze and run out of food, or choke on our own detritus, then we'll die out, just the same as any other organism.
-
I don't see any other species wrecking the planet.
We're not.
I find that bland assertion so preposterous that I think we shall simply have to agree to disagree.
-
I don't see any other species wrecking the planet.
We're not.
I find that bland assertion so preposterous that I think we shall simply have to agree to disagree.
So you'd be surprised to learn that I support environmental measures to 'save the planet'?
-
There is this unspoken, unjustifiable assumption...
I don't see any other species wrecking the planet.
We're not. We are doing what any living organism does, increasing to the limit of sustainability. In terms of numbers we are a successful organism, largely dominant on this planet. If we over-graze and run out of food, or choke on our own detritus, then we'll die out, just the same as any other organism.
Surely what makes us different is having enough intelligence to KNOW we are over-grazing, running out of food, and killing off loads of OTHER species with our detritus.
-
I'd like to share a revelation that I’ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species, and I realised that humans are not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment; but you humans do not. Instead you multiply, and multiply, until every resource is consumed. The only way for you to survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern... a virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer on this planet, you are a plague, and we... are the cure
- Agent Smith
Edit :Humans are quite simply not destroying the planet. They are just making it more difficult for the Earth to sustain us (and a few other species). We are changing the planet (probably temporarily) until it finds a new or the same equilibrium. Humans will be a tiny blip, an unnoticeably thin layer of archeological evidence in geological time.
Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Humans, Something else, Something else, Something else, Something else, Something else, Something else, Something else, Something else, Something else, Something else, Something else, Something else, Something else, Something else, Something else, Something else, Something else, Something else,
-
There is this unspoken, unjustifiable assumption...
I don't see any other species wrecking the planet.
We're not. We are doing what any living organism does, increasing to the limit of sustainability. In terms of numbers we are a successful organism, largely dominant on this planet. If we over-graze and run out of food, or choke on our own detritus, then we'll die out, just the same as any other organism.
Surely what makes us different is having enough intelligence to KNOW we are over-grazing, running out of food, and killing off loads of OTHER species with our detritus.
We are self-aware, which might be unique. But that doesn't put us outside nature, it just makes our behaviour patterns a little more complicated.
-
I'd like to share a revelation that I’ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species, and I realised that humans are not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment; but you humans do not. Instead you multiply, and multiply, until every resource is consumed. The only way for you to survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern... a virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer on this planet, you are a plague, and we... are the cure
- Agent Smith
Which is amusing, but bollocks. What exactly is a diseased planet? Are the other planets in the solar system 'diseased' because they don't support life?
-
I'd like to share a revelation that I’ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species, and I realised that humans are not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment; but you humans do not. Instead you multiply, and multiply, until every resource is consumed. The only way for you to survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern... a virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer on this planet, you are a plague, and we... are the cure
- Agent Smith
Which is amusing, but bollocks. What exactly is a diseased planet? Are the other planets in the solar system 'diseased' because they don't support life?
It was only a light-hearted movie quote
-
It was only a light-hearted movie quote
Sorry, My post reads rather aggressively. But your quote does seem to sum up what a lot of people believe about human kind.
-
If I was watching from outer space, I'd be looking at the planet over the last 100,000 years and I'd probably be interested in the ocean currents initially, especially El Nino, over time I'd probably conclude that the solid surface of the Earth was changing fundamentally, I'd surmise that grass species had formed a symbiotic relationship with another species and were displacing forest cover, I'd speculate if this was sustainable due to signs of dessication at the junction with arid zones. I'd probably conclude that the symbiosis would break down due to stress factors and I'd make a note to look back later to see which way it turned out, desertification or reforestation. I probably wouldn't have enough resolution to make out the other species involved in the symbiosis, it could be bacteria, maybe an insect, maybe something more complex.
Damon.
-
Speed of revegetation? Well, after the last lot of ice receded it took around 500 years for climax forest to become dominent. We are starting from much better growing conditions and already have partial covering...so it would be a lot lot less.
As for the human vs animal/plant debate, it's very much a post industrial western thing. Look at the ethnographic record and you'll find that many peoples don't differentiate between people, (non-human) animals and plants in the way that we do. Many hunter-gatherer societies have/had social limitations upon how they can use the "resources" around them that stop them over exploiting. This works to the extent that they can let members of their own groups die rather than change the way that they interact with the world.
These people aren't any less intelligent than us. What is different is their cultural interpretation of the world. Humanity has moved from the "Giving Environment" to domestication of nature and a massive rise in competative consumption that is fuelling the current environmental changes.
-
I probably wouldn't have enough resolution to make out the other species involved in the symbiosis, it could be bacteria, maybe an insect, maybe something more complex.
Ah, but you're not Agent Smith.
-
There is this unspoken, unjustifiable assumption...
I don't see any other species wrecking the planet.
We're not. We are doing what any living organism does, increasing to the limit of sustainability. In terms of numbers we are a successful organism, largely dominant on this planet. If we over-graze and run out of food, or choke on our own detritus, then we'll die out, just the same as any other organism.
Are you saying that because we are capable of becoming extinct, we are not capable of large scale pollution of the planet? These are two very different suppositions. No species is beyond extinction, but that does not negate our ability to pollute the planet on such a global scale.
-
There is this unspoken, unjustifiable assumption...
I don't see any other species wrecking the planet.
We're not. We are doing what any living organism does, increasing to the limit of sustainability. In terms of numbers we are a successful organism, largely dominant on this planet. If we over-graze and run out of food, or choke on our own detritus, then we'll die out, just the same as any other organism.
Are you saying that because we are capable of becoming extinct, we are not capable of large scale pollution of the planet? These are two very different suppositions. No species is beyond extinction, but that does not negate our ability to pollute the planet on such a global scale.
Of course not. But we have a tendency to think that what we do to the planet is somehow different from what any organism does. It isn't, except in scale, as you would expect from a species as numerous as we are. We are a part of nature and so is everything we do. It's peculiar arrogance to suggest we are somehow outside the natural world looking in. We are as natural as elephant dung and earthquakes.
-
There is this unspoken, unjustifiable assumption...
I don't see any other species wrecking the planet.
We're not. We are doing what any living organism does, increasing to the limit of sustainability. In terms of numbers we are a successful organism, largely dominant on this planet. If we over-graze and run out of food, or choke on our own detritus, then we'll die out, just the same as any other organism.
Are you saying that because we are capable of becoming extinct, we are not capable of large scale pollution of the planet? These are two very different suppositions. No species is beyond extinction, but that does not negate our ability to pollute the planet on such a global scale.
Of course not. But we have a tendency to think that what we do to the planet is somehow different from what any organism does. It isn't, except in scale, as you would expect from a species as numerous as we are. We are a part of nature and so is everything we do. It's peculiar arrogance to suggest we are somehow outside the natural world looking in. We are as natural as elephant dung and earthquakes.
- We drive more species to extinction than all others put together
- We fill our skies, rivers and oceans with thousands of tonnes of pollutants, causing global, environmental problems
- Our cities, towns, roads etc often require the destruction of natural habitats such as forest and woodland on massive scales
- We have decimated more rain forest than we can possibly replace, affecting the natural carbon cycle
I could go on.
The human species is natural in the sense that we are biological creatures who are anatomically similar to other species, and partake in natural processes / actions such as sex, excretion, digestion etc. It is our behaviour that is unnatural. No other species is capable of destroying the planet. No other species harms the planet to the same global scale as we do. There is nothing natural about causing global destruction to our planet.
It is perfectly possible to be natural in form and state, but to behave in ways that are not natural.
-
cows producing methane and other gasses to damage ozone layer? Slightly frivolous example. Bacteria and viruses killing off large swathes of trees and plant life?
-
You could say something similar about the crown-of-thorns sea star, although it doesn't burn fuels and pollute the atmosphere.
The influenza virus, bubonic plague, malaria and AIDS have also had a pretty good go at wiping us out, although they've generally been thwarted due to differences in climate, a too-rapid kill rate or (shock) changes in our behaviour to cure or avoid them.
-
It is our behaviour that is unnatural.
What do you mean by 'unnatural'? We're not gods, we don't exist outside nature. Any other creature that achieved the same numbers and dominance would have a substantial effect on its environment. The only difference is scale.
Our main adaptation is a large brain, which enables us to have a unique degree of foresight. Thus we are able to plan large and complex works. The same foresight enables us to see that we are 'overgrazing' our environment to our disadvantage. The difficulty is that effecting plans to mitigate future environmental problems requires us to incur disadvantages now. We appear not to be very good at doing that.
-
This is turning into politics and big issues.
yes we have large brains enabling us to envisage and undertake big and damaging projects, but those brains are working at the margin. Our culture is the most important factor, stupid people can still carry on damaging the planet with what we already have. We can all have ideas but we need a medium through which to express those ideas and make them concrete. One of the strengths of cultural diversity is the capacity of at least one strand to adapt itself to changed conditions. Ray Mears may be a God in 25 years time, and I see they're bringing 'Survivors' back, it'll be Doomwatch next, you mark my words.
Damon.
-
There is nothing natural about causing global destruction to our planet.
I'm looking at the birds nesting outside, and true to form they're treating their little world like a disposable favela: the nests are filling up with detritus and bird poop, and by the time they leave, they'll be uninhabitable.
Yeast in brewing will multiply and multiply until it starves and dies or poisons itself on its own (alcoholic) effluent.
It's perfectly natural to strive to increase beyond your available resources. This is Darwin's very first observation. Every single thing that is alive does it. The ones that didn't were selected out right back at the single-cell stage.
We're just better at it than most.
Culture gets tricky because we've got this huge imperative to breed and spread and as long as there's a scrap of green space, some bugger will want to move there and raise a family.
-
To get back to the program briefly. I enjoyed it but some of the conclusions were a bit suspect. I think in general there was a lot of exageration for the sake of sensationalism. I can think of bends in roads that have been abandoned after the road was straightened and they don't dissappear as quickly as suggested.
I'm not sure why but I like the idea that nature will grow over our remains and remove all trace of us eventually. Maybe it is something to do with mankind's awful arrogance. What the program reminded us of is the amount of effort we constantly have to put in to hold nature back.
-
It is our behaviour that is unnatural.
What do you mean by 'unnatural'? We're not gods, we don't exist outside nature. Any other creature that achieved the same numbers and dominance would have a substantial effect on its environment. The only difference is scale.
Our main adaptation is a large brain, which enables us to have a unique degree of foresight. Thus we are able to plan large and complex works. The same foresight enables us to see that we are 'overgrazing' our environment to our disadvantage. The difficulty is that effecting plans to mitigate future environmental problems requires us to incur disadvantages now. We appear not to be very good at doing that.
I think our definition of what constitutes 'natural' is the issue here.
If you believe that we are not capable of unnatural behaviour at all, then we will have to agree to disagree. Having sex with a farm animal is unnatural IMO.
If you believe that we are capable of unnatural behaviour, but do not believe that the behaviours I have described earlier constitute unnatural behaviour, then that is perhaps more difficult to resolve. Personally, I do not think pumping our oceans full of waste is natural. If you disagree, then we will have to agree to disagree.
-
I think our definition of what constitutes 'natural' is the issue here.
Just out of interest, what is your definition of 'natural' in this context?
-
The program was quite reassuring about the effect humanity is having on the planet - part of me was wondering if it had been funded by oil companies and other global warming naysayers...
-
Dunno why, since the big threat of CC is to *us*, not the big ball o'rock. Barring a clathrate doom, we'll be miserable and the world will carry on.
"Natural" waste is of course to crap in our nearest river and get cholera; if that's a workable definition of natural then abandon fire and tools and go die young on the Salisbury Savannah. That sort of natural sucks ass.
-
The program was quite reassuring about the effect humanity is having on the planet - part of me was wondering if it had been funded by oil companies and other global warming naysayers...
I'm in the same boat as Andy here. In geological terms, we'll have negligible impact on the planet. There'll be periods when average temps and average CO2 levels will be significantly higher than those we can cause (just like there have been in the past). There will probably be other major mass extinctions (just like those that have already happened).
-
If you believe that we are not capable of unnatural behaviour at all, then we will have to agree to disagree. Having sex with a farm animal is unnatural IMO.
I think we have a confusion between 'unnatural' and socially unacceptable (such as - speaking of sex with animals - the little dog arousing itself frantically against your leg).
Actually we have a little way to go before "pumping oceans full of waste" is really considered unacceptable.
-
The program was quite reassuring about the effect humanity is having on the planet - part of me was wondering if it had been funded by oil companies and other global warming naysayers...
I'm in the same boat as Andy here. In geological terms, we'll have negligible impact on the planet. There'll be periods when average temps and average CO2 levels will be significantly higher than those we can cause (just like there have been in the past). There will probably be other major mass extinctions (just like those that have already happened).
Oh, I agree - global warming's a threat to us, and not to the planet. Across the lifetime of the planet, we're barely a fart in the wind.
But I thought the program underplayed the effect humanity is having in the short term, i.e. to plant and animal populations or levels of pollution in rivers & oceans. Is it really as slight as was portrayed in the program?
-
Actually we have a little way to go before "pumping oceans full of waste" is really considered unacceptable.
Good point Ian, my notional little green men may have spotted the North Pacific Trash Vortex by now.
Greenpeace | Pacific trash vortex showing drift of ocean pollution. (http://oceans.greenpeace.org/en/the-expedition/news/trashing-our-oceans/ocean_pollution_animation)
Damon.
-
We still dump untreated sewage into the sea all round the UK. OK, it's not as prevalent as it was (most of South West Water's sewage was untreated until the mid-1990s, hence "Surfers Against Sewage"), but it's still happening.
The trouble with humans as opposed to other species is that we've worked out how to make tools, fire, chemicals and split the atom which infinitely multiply our destructive powers. Our nearest animal cousins have barely started on the first of those. I remember a story where ants somehow acquired the gift of fire - it's a scary prospect, because even the smallest creature can burn the world.
-
If you believe that we are not capable of unnatural behaviour at all, then we will have to agree to disagree. Having sex with a farm animal is unnatural IMO.
Actually we have a little way to go before "pumping oceans full of waste" is really considered unacceptable.
I think to the majority of people, it is unacceptable. To the minority who commit such acts, it is justified.
-
I think our definition of what constitutes 'natural' is the issue here.
Just out of interest, what is your definition of 'natural' in this context?
Natural refers to being consistent with the laws of nature. The oceans have been around for millenia before we came along and filled them with our waste and pollution. In this sense, we are doing something that nature by itself would not do, and therefore is unnatural.
-
We still dump untreated sewage into the sea all round the UK. OK, it's not as prevalent as it was (most of South West Water's sewage was untreated until the mid-1990s, hence "Surfers Against Sewage"), but it's still happening.
The trouble with humans as opposed to other species is that we've worked out how to make tools, fire, chemicals and split the atom which infinitely multiply our destructive powers. Our nearest animal cousins have barely started on the first of those. I remember a story where ants somehow acquired the gift of fire - it's a scary prospect, because even the smallest creature can burn the world.
This is the key point - we have the intelligence and foresight to know that these actions are destructive, and will be to future generations, but still we continue to perpetuate in such destructive actions.
-
...my notional little green men may have spotted the North Pacific Trash Vortex by now.
Greenpeace | Pacific trash vortex showing drift of ocean pollution. (http://oceans.greenpeace.org/en/the-expedition/news/trashing-our-oceans/ocean_pollution_animation)
~50 years to create an oceanic carpet of plastic rubbish the size of Texas :(
And it's not the only one, and nor is the plastic going away.
-
This is the key point - we have the intelligence and foresight to know that these actions are destructive, and will be to future generations, but still we continue to perpetuate in such destructive actions.
Do rain-forest-cut-down people know/care?
-
it's just a shame it was CGI'd to death. And I found the VO downright irritating.
This could describe virtually every televisition documentary I've seen in the last five years. :-\
My pet long-term worry is about what happens to all the nuclear power plants and waste dumps in areas that have been subject to glaciation in the past, and probably will be again if the pattern continues.