It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Will humanity become a myth?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Suppose humanity is nearly completely wiped out in a global cataclysm. All our infrastructure just gets washed away and only 100 million survive the catacylsm and have to lead lives as we would imagine in the stone age and in harsh climates. What will happen to the legacy of mankind? Will it make it to the future inhabitants of this planet. What do you think would survive of us?

Or will the future habitants just speak of us and our great floods as myths and be talking about us on future conspiracy boards.

[edit on 10-1-2005 by Indigo_Child]




posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 08:22 PM
link   
if that did happen, id say about 100 million of us would survive.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Interesting situation which I hope will never happen.

First How does every infrastructure gets wiped out, yet 100 million survive? That is a pretty large number, if you ask me.

Second why would humanity die off? There are 100 million people left on the planet.

I don't understand your question, why would they not recognize the 100 million people?

Surf



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 08:39 PM
link   
No, we will not become a myth; we were real. I have the credit card bills to prove it.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by surfup
Interesting situation which I hope will never happen.

First How does every infrastructure gets wiped out, yet 100 million survive? That is a pretty large number, if you ask me.

Second why would humanity die off? There are 100 million people left on the planet.

I don't understand your question, why would they not recognize the 100 million people?

Surf


I first want to clarify that humanity in this context means our current civilization.

100 million sounds like a lot, but the reason I have provided this figure, is because I cannot imagine a population of 6 billion people to be reduced to less than six figures. If you consider 100 million people will be living a dozen continents and over thousands of miles of land, with no transport, harsh climate, lack of food and clean water and rampant disease. Then it means that the population would experience negative population growth, and over the years, it would decrease drastically.

So if we assume a cave man sort of life, then recording history and technology would be the least of our worries and as a result there would be little trace of our civilization as it stands today. Later, if a new technological civilization emerged, would they look upon us as a myth or do you think our legacy would have been succesfully passed on. What would have survived from us?

[edit on 10-1-2005 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
100 million sounds like a lot, but the reason I have provided this figure, is because I cannot imagine a population of 6 billion people to be reduced to less than six figures. If you consider 100 million people will be living a dozen continents and over thousands of miles of land, with no transport, harsh climate, lack of food and clean water and rampant disease. Then it means that the population would experience negative population growth, and over the years, it would decrease drastically.

So if we assume a cave man sort of life, then recording history and technology would be the least of our worries and as a result there would be little trace of our civilization as it stands today left. Later, if a new technological civilization emerged, would they look upon as as a myth or do you think our legacy would have been succesfully passed on.


100 million is more than enough. First of all, we are the modern man. We are much superior than those who lived 1000 years ago, even 10 years ago. We are not superior in strength or numbers, but in knowledge. We know stuff that people didn't know 10 years ago that saves a lot of lives today.

And we have the knowledge of technology. Even if we have to start over all again, I am sure we will bounce back and soon we will come to present level, because we know all sorts of things that enhances our survival, ensuring we pass on our genes and not that tiny rat surviving on our wastes.

New technology doesn't come out of nowhere, it grows on itself. We didn't suddenly become a nuclear power, we used research info from people before us and combined them. Not only that we now know that people will be eager to learn about us, so we will definitely be recording our history, once we get past food and security problems. So we won't be a myth and we won't be the topics of future conspiracy boards, all this assuming that a even greater tsunami wipes a lot of people out, which I doubt will occur.

Surf



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 08:54 PM
link   
We are all myths, eventually. No need to wait for your distant future.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 10:55 PM
link   
You are assuming of the 100 million people that survive would be white-collar working class. That is an errornous assumption. The following factors will affect how many white collars survive:

1: Population
2: % White collar

Now, in 266 countries and territories, and assuming equal number of people survive per country, it would mean 375, 939 people per country and territory. Now if we assume the white-collar population is about 1% of the total global population, it means 3,759 per country. About 1 per 69 square miles(average country size: 261,000 square miles)

Finally, considering there is no infrastructure, power or machines and the none white-collar population would outnumber you 100:1. In addition there is disease, lack of food and clean water. The knowledge would make no difference.

What would make a difference in such brutal circumstances would be physical fitness, sheer might and strength and will power. If we then consider that we suffer a negative population rate of 10% over 10 years, then there would be very few white collars left in the world. So almost all of the specialized knowledge would be lost.

This would leave it up to the rest to propogate unspecialized knowledge through word of mouth, mainly through stories. As everyone will put their own spin on the stories, it will eventually become too corrupted, that it would become the equivalent of a myth for future generations.

So, perhaps we could become a myth if such a calamity were to befall us, and if we can become a myth, then perhaps our own myths of past advanced civilizations are possibly real.

[edit on 10-1-2005 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 11:52 PM
link   
They would know we really had existed.
Mankind has left far bigger phycial marks on this planet during the
past hundred years than the older civilizations that came before us.
Just all our junk and refuse alone could tell the story.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 12:05 AM
link   
I dont see how it could be possible that man be wiped out in to becoming a myth. Like was said... We have left way to much of an impact on this earth... Even if all of the buildings, and constructive things such as that were destroyed, there would be clear evidence of pollution, pollution that couldnt have been caused by any natural occurances. I dont think it matters what happens... Modern man will never be forgotten on this planet.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 12:06 AM
link   
Actualy, if there is a global cataclysme and inititaly there are only 100 million people left, the chances are that of those 100 Million, most will die too over the next year or so, from the direct influence of having 5.9 Billion human corpses and uncountable animal corpses all over the world.

This is the main concern in Southern Asia at the moment, getting rid of the 150k+ corpses of the victims because those corpses are descease brewing cultures that can bring the deathtoll to millions and 10's of millions if they aren't cleaned up really fast.

You'll have people surviving in remote area's, where no technology or condensed population was present.

In case that this cataclysme happens trough nuclear or other war, we would actualy have the US, EU, Russia and Asia wiped out, while the southern hemisphere of the earth would be mainly untouched.

In case of natural disaster, I'd think that if a disaster happened that killed 5.9 billion people, including the secluded population groups in the southern hemisphere, like south america and afrika(afrika counts for quite a few people ya know) then there is litle chance that anyone except the most primitive people on earth will survive and then still, if the natural disaster has a longer term effect on nature, there is litle chance that any mamalian lifeforms will survive.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by antigovFZ777
Even if all of the buildings, and constructive things such as that were destroyed, there would be clear evidence of pollution, pollution that couldnt have been caused by any natural occurances. I dont think it matters what happens... Modern man will never be forgotten on this planet.


How would the future generation know what the natural level of pollution should be on this planet?



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Good topic indigo, voted way above (been seeing allot of crap topics lately, this was a welcome change, for me at least.)

I have given this allot of thought, believing myself that there have been advanced civilizations that have come and gone in the past. What I have always pondered is how we can ensure that any future civilizations not only know about us, but maintain technical knowledge. I can't think of any fail-proof ways of recording information that would survive the ages. Even harder then getting the message to survive would be ensuring that future mankind would be able to read and understand it. If you figure on a 7,000-10,00 year cyclic rate for civilizations advancing to the point we have, and that technological advancement's exponential growth rate is more or less universal, then any type of mathematical code you could record information in would not be deciphered until the future society is nearing our level of advancement. Of course, once they are able to read it and therefore at an advanced stage, the knowledge would not be that advanced to them, and the recordings would easily dismissed on future ATS like web sites


Anyways, enough rambling.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by antigovFZ777
Even if all of the buildings, and constructive things such as that were destroyed, there would be clear evidence of pollution, pollution that couldnt have been caused by any natural occurances. I dont think it matters what happens... Modern man will never be forgotten on this planet.


What pollution is there that couldn’t have been caused by any natural sources? I don't know of any that you couldn’t make a good theory for.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   
cock roaches would survive.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Any of you ever read BattleField: Earth? After about a thousand years all of the buildings were still standing. I mean, it's steel and concrete, not mud and brick. I realize that the book wasn't THAT realistic, but in fact it made sense. If man does survive some great cataclysm, chances are whatever's left will go into the forests and hills to stay away from the dead bodies (being because, well, people are smart enough to do that) and will tell stories of what hapopened and why not to go back down into the cities. Then after hundreds of years these stories will become tales of creation and man will have reverted back to the native-american/aboriginal state it once was in (and still is in in many areas). Slowly man will creep back into the cities, of which people will have no explanation whatsoever of why they are there. Man will eventually resettle among the cities and will most likely not begin cultural growrth for another million years.
Keep in mind, this is just theory. And I do realize that in this 'cataclysm' we are talking about most building will be gone. But still, this route is more plausible.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout
What pollution is there that couldn’t have been caused by any natural sources? I don't know of any that you couldn’t make a good theory for.


Automobile Tire Dumps. Impossible to mistake for natural and plenty of them.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 12:16 AM
link   


Automobile Tire Dumps. Impossible to mistake for natural and plenty of them.


Thats exactly what i had in mind when i was talking about the pollution. But i figured there were plenty more things like that, that are the same way. So i just said pollution in general. I dont beleive nature can make a tire!



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout
I have given this allot of thought, believing myself that there have been advanced civilizations that have come and gone in the past. What I have always pondered is how we can ensure that any future civilizations not only know about us, but maintain technical knowledge.


I think it's probably safer for a future civilization, post-catacylsm, to start over, and to develop the technologies they need as they go along.

Picking up pieces of ours seems dangerous, without some sort of experience with the mistakes we've made along the way, to go with it.

Especially if the catacylsm is a RESULT of our technology.

Given your theory of civilization cycles versus when we NEED to leave this planet because of the death of the Sun, we have many more chances to get it right.


I happen to think that such a catacylsm will be avoided. I expect a more "minor" cataclysm which acts as motivation to stop the foolishness and get serious about forward progress. Although I can't say what form it will take. (the minor catacylsm, that is)



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 01:51 AM
link   


Humans, pffft ,its been debunked!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join