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.

 

Mankind's Trace would Vanish within 200,000 years

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Actually I believe it was the eruption of the super volcano Mount Toba 70,000 years ago in Sumatra that caused a mass extinction and the near extinction of the human race. Only a few thousand survived and this shows up in our genetics and is referred to as the genetic bottle neck, if memory serves. We were that close.




posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance

I would rather spend my time trying to stay alive as a cvilisation, if we can't do that, well, what makes you think we could bridge aeons? what makes you think ancient people managed to sucessfully do that ? what if these old civilisations were nearly as corrupt as ours ?




Please forgive the cliche, but it is appropriate:

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

...Most myths, folktales and other 'records' describe a conflict between "good" and "evil," generally with humanity playing the role of unwitting pawns.

Key points imo:

1. Corruption occurs in a hierarchy.

2. The corrupt hierarchy seeks to perpetuate itself, and "bridge aeons."

3. The corrupt "force" needs to be, and has been, met with parallel efforts by those working to neutralize the hierarchy.


.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Bingo!

Using a medical analogy, the virus has a dormant stage, which it can use to outlive potential adversaries. in other words, if your scenario is correct, it's more of an escape move than anything else, in which case keeping this civilisation alive long enough until it can develop antibodies (another analogy
) would not just save us we might be doing future civilisations a huge favor by letting them grow into a clean environment without time capsuled booby traps.

uh, oh did i just write that ? ? k, i'm officially insane.

[edit on 19-10-2006 by Long Lance]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance

we might be doing future civilisations a huge favor by letting them grow into a clean environment without time capsuled booby traps.




So if all "traces" of our civilization will disappear in 200,000 years, in the event of an earth shattering catastrophe - who's to say it hasn't happened before?

And if it has happened before, why haven't we learned from our mistakes?

IMO - We haven't learned because:

1. "Knowledge" is appropriated by the ruling class and kept "secret," thus

2. Leaving most human survivors floundering in ignorance after predictable catastrophes.


IMO - the solution is to open the floodgates. Let everyone have access to all information. Ensure that everyone is on the same page when the poop hits the blades.

Mankind can only progress in its entirety, as a unit; there is no growth when rulers are established arbitrarily, or god forbid, by economic status.

I choose Open Access, Open Source, and Conscious Evolution. I think protecting information as privately owned Intellectual Property is nuts, given that our planet's and our own future is at stake.

Does that make me officially insane too?






posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 02:40 PM
link   
To answer your last question first...probably.


The overall assumption that if it has happened once it will happen again has several flaws however. First and foremost the fossil record, while incomplete does show a steady progression from the earliest human like primates to modern man, who functionally appears in the last 100,000 years or less. So the question is where in that time frame is the space for the rise and fall of another large and powerful enough civilization to impact the planet the way we have? After all while recorded history is only about 5,000 years...the Neolithic build up to that took almost twice as long.

And two why would you even possibly assume that they would have a social or economic system anywhere like ours? Capitalism is the current dominate...but in all reality it is only a few hundred years old. There are many economic models including, yes communism.

I suggest reading Ursula K LeGuin's wonderful book (actually any of her books such as "The Left Hand of Darkness"..."The Lathe of Heaven"..."The Dispossessed" for ex.) "Always Coming Home." Also the book I cite at the beginning of this thread' George Stewart's "Earth Abides" as excellent reads on this subject.

[edit on 19-10-2006 by grover]

[edit on 19-10-2006 by grover]

[edit on 19-10-2006 by grover]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
To answer your last question first...probably.







Original thinkers are always pilloried. Alas, tis a hard road.







The overall assumption that if it has happened once it will happen again has several flaws however. First and foremost the fossil record, while incomplete does show a steady progression from the earliest human like primates to modern man, who functionally appears in the last 100,000 years or less. So the question is where in that time frame is the space for the rise and fall of another large and powerful enough civilization to impact the planet the way we have? After all while recorded history is only about 5,000 years...the Neolithic build up to that took almost twice as long.




I do not make the assumption - just identify the possibility.

On the other hand, your position is based on several assumptions, for example: man's evolution involves a forward linear advance, without devolution; evidence of earlier advanced civilization in any form would be recognizable to us; an intelligent human species would physically approximate our present form, else not be intelligent; and technological progress is the only legitimate kind of progress.





...why would you even possibly assume that they would have a social or economic system anywhere like ours? Capitalism is the current dominate...but in all reality it is only a few hundred years old.



I am only speculating, based on the possibility, not making the assumption.


And fyi - capitalism is NOT "only a few hundred years old" - Christ threw the moneylenders out of the temple over 2000 years ago, according to popular history. Other evidence suggests capitalism is much older, ie., the Epic of Gilgamesh.





I suggest reading Ursula K LeGuin's wonderful book (actually any of her books such as "The Left Hand of Darkness"..."The Lathe of Heaven"..."The Dispossessed" for ex.) "Always Coming Home." Also the book I cite at the beginning of this thread' George Stewart's "Earth Abides" as excellent reads on this subject.




LeGuin is one of my favorites. Do you remember "The Word for World is Forest"? ...Like her, I lean towards Taoist-Buddhism. Which fyi, does not make me a communist.


I don't remember Stewart's "Earth Abides" - will check it out.

Back at you - I recommend Doris Lessing's "Canopus in Argos" series, and Idries Shah's "Caravan of Dreams."







[edit on 19-10-2006 by soficrow]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Guys, don't worry, with the threat of nuclear war with Iran and korea i think we could knock that number down to 20 years



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 03:23 PM
link   
I have read both of those many years ago.

As for capitalism...I would have to argue that you are wrong. Capitalism is a by-product of the industral age in that, agarian societies, which is what we had until the industral revolution really did not allow for the build up of capital...it was a goods driven society...you bought something, ideally on the cheap and tried to sell it for a profit. That really is not the same thing. The small stalls in the suks and markets of the mid-east for example are still to this day more like the latter than they are the former. Capital is by its very nature a surplus, not of goods, but of coinage...Capital as we know it made its earliest appearences with the rise of familes like the Medici.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
I have read both of those many years ago.




Me too. Just started rereading Shikasta last nite, need to get a copy of Caravan.





As for capitalism...I would have to argue that you are wrong. Capitalism is a by-product of the industral age in that, agarian societies, which is what we had until the industral revolution really did not allow for the build up of capital...it was a goods driven society...you bought something, ideally on the cheap and tried to sell it for a profit. That really is not the same thing. The small stalls in the suks and markets of the mid-east for example are still to this day more like the latter than they are the former. Capital is by its very nature a surplus, not of goods, but of coinage...Capital as we know it made its earliest appearences with the rise of familes like the Medici.



It may not be a popular understanding - but some scholars argue that Gilgamesh created the template for industrial society. Briefly - I see Gilgamesh as representing - if not spearheading - the worst of Western civilization (industrial-economic "development" leading to environment degradation). Certainly Gilgamesh established a city, and an economy reliant upon services (hence capital), not just goods.

While controversies certainly exist, viewing him in this way is not unprecedented. Ie.:





What constrained the proliferation of the Bronze Age, however, was lack of fuel, just like our current crisis. Richard Cowen describes the situation well in his essay on the Bronze Age:

...perhaps the most famous documentation of the shortage of wood around the ancient Mediterranean is the Epic of Gilgamesh ... Stripped of sex and violence, the Gilgamesh epic is about deforestation. Gilgamesh and his companion go off to cut down a cedar forest, braving the wrath of the forest god Humbaba, who has been entrusted with forest conservation. It's interesting that Gilgamesh is cast as the hero, even though he has the typical logger mentality: cut it down, and never mind the consequences. The repercussions for Gilgamesh are severe: he loses his chance of immortality, for example. But the consequences for Sumeria were even worse. It's clear that the geography and climate of southern Mesopotamia would not provide the wood fuel to support a Bronze Age civilization that worked metal, built large cities, and constructed canals and ceremonial centers that used wood, plaster, and bricks. ...The loss of Gilgamesh's immortality may be a literary reflection of the realization that Sumeria could not be sustained.

www.geology.ucdavis.edu...




[Sorry if this is going off topic, but you did ask.]



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
And if it has happened before, why haven't we learned from our mistakes?


we will never learn untill we understand that compassion and co-operation is more important than, say, money and power, in order to make this world a more peaceful place.

I'm not too sure about the probability of that happening in the near fruture ....



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Mankind's Trace would Vanish within 200,000 years
That's why i think there were ancients civilisations that were as advanced, if not more, than us before us. And if any scientists believe this study and don't believe that much more advanced civilisations before us, there's something that doesn't work in their thinking...



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
IMO - the solution is to open the floodgates. Let everyone have access to all information. Ensure that everyone is on the same page when the poop hits the blades.



That would solve most of our current problems, unfortunately, i'm not a genius neither do i know it all through channeling/smoking illegal substances, an accidential blow to the head or other weird mechanisms.

These guys operate like banks, let people foolishly carry their wealth to them for protection (sound familiar?) then use it against everybody. Once they get something (anything) into their greedy paws, it's immediately converted into a corrupt asset, think biotechnology, and can no longer be used, realistically. that does not mean we cannot pursue scientific goals, it just means that their records will diligently hide the 'essence' from us.

no, beating them at their own game is not quite promising, is it? so, i'd say we have to keep in mind that in case of liberation, they will try to use the world's nuclear arsenal against us, along with all the other weapon systems procured by taxes... this needs to be cleverly countered (by technology probably), then we'll have all the time in the world to ferret them out of their holes, earth is for all intents and purposes a closed system, ie. i doubt they have ships that go very far.

[edit on 20-10-2006 by Long Lance]



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by skywize

Originally posted by soficrow
And if it has happened before, why haven't we learned from our mistakes?


we will never learn untill we understand that compassion and co-operation is more important than, say, money and power, in order to make this world a more peaceful place.

I'm not too sure about the probability of that happening in the near fruture ....

The problem is the world still operates under Darwinian rules. Survival of the fittest is what drives us whether we like it or not. The most successful are the ones that rise to the top and control things. They tend to look down on those who can’t compete. This is why Capitalism works and Socialism doesn’t. Capitalism better matches human nature and it’s competitive nature. Unfortunately, without that competitive nature, we would not have aspired to be what we are today. It is both a curse and a blessing. The same cycle has happened in every civilization that has risen and fallen. I don’t think that can be changed.



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Death is the great leveller. Rich or poor, we all end up dust.
When "they" are fossicking around in the ruins, I doubt they would know the difference between a BMW or a Rolls from a Datsun sunbird.
What I would like to know, in 200,000 years when we're supposedly all gone,
how on earth would you explain, for instance, the internet from how its built , to how it works and have the info small enough to fit into a nice little time capsule?

Its funny how we often think that whoever comes after will be more intelligent.
What if it reverts back to the beginning again...cavemen?



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000
The problem is the world still operates under Darwinian rules. Survival of the fittest is what drives us whether we like it or not. ...



No, we do, WE call the survivor the fittest.

...then attribute it to genetics. our rules make losers and winners within a society. don't buy the propaganda, think about the following example: society selects the best (fittest?) then sends them off to war, the very best then get chosen for more delicate missions - like invasions.

Then the very fittest land at omaha beach and a large portion of them gets slaughtered. what now? darwinism is a tautology, it is based on the final result, it cannot actually predict unless society decides to select (kill) the 'unworthy' who might be anyone. this is social selection, not natural selection, which is one reason if not the main reason why war is appealing to ever more people... it does not know rules, it's value free, you know.


Fitness doesn't just apply to individuals, it applies to everything and while these are certainly connected they are not the same.

PS: do you think we are Fit as a civilisation?



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
No, we do, WE call the survivor the fittest.

...then attribute it to genetics. our rules make losers and winners within a society.

Not sure what you mean by this, but I think you are saying that we are deciding who is fittest and it is not natural selection? Sorry, but we do tend to make choices based on this, it just may not seem apparent to you. We as individuals select our leaders, friends and mates based on how fit we think they are.


Originally posted by Long Lance
Then the very fittest land at omaha beach and a large portion of them gets slaughtered. what now?

The ones that are the fittest are not the ones that go to fight and get slaughtered. They are the ones that are directing the assault. The generals have risen above their own piers to become the leaders.


Originally posted by Long Lance
Fitness doesn't just apply to individuals, it applies to everything and while these are certainly connected they are not the same.

But they are connected, and this was my point.


Originally posted by Long Lance
PS: do you think we are Fit as a civilisation?

If you mean the US, I think we were at one time. We are still the greatest country, but I think we are past our prime, and are facing the end of the cycle the same as every other superpower before us.

If you mean humanity as a whole, I think we are what we are. I do have hope we will advance and become a more humane race. Just think of how far we have come. We used to treat each other much worse than we do now, for example: gladiators and slaves. All of that would be appalling to us now.

So who knows what will happen in the future. We might advance and someday reach the stars, or we could all be wiped out tomorrow by an asteroid. Who knows?



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000

The ones that are the fittest are not the ones that go to fight and get slaughtered. They are the ones that are directing the assault. The generals have risen above their own piers to become the leaders.



a superior trait should dominate and replace the inferior, right?

So, let's think this example through, being above one's peers is an indicator of fitness, sooner or later we should all be leaders because the rest were apparently unfit.

in case you don't see it, 'fitness' depends on the environment, within a civilisation, the high priest (or similar class) may reign supreme, without it, he's merely a meal for the next predator. this is of course irrelevant as long as our world doesn't collapse, but deceisive if it does.

PS: if going to war means being unfit, how many will voluntarily enlist ? ? sin't society demanding exactly the opposite of what your interpretation of Darwinsim would recommend? can you see how a society may pulverise into nothingness under this kind of tension?

[edit on 21-10-2006 by Long Lance]



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 06:40 AM
link   
Could this be the reason we dont see evidence of life on mars? It just vanished over time?



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000

Originally posted by skywize

Originally posted by soficrow
And if it has happened before, why haven't we learned from our mistakes?


we will never learn untill we understand that compassion and co-operation is more important than, say, money and power, in order to make this world a more peaceful place.

I'm not too sure about the probability of that happening in the near fruture ....

The problem is the world still operates under Darwinian rules. Survival of the fittest is what drives us whether we like it or not. The most successful are the ones that rise to the top and control things. They tend to look down on those who can’t compete. This is why Capitalism works and Socialism doesn’t. Capitalism better matches human nature and it’s competitive nature. Unfortunately, without that competitive nature, we would not have aspired to be what we are today. It is both a curse and a blessing. The same cycle has happened in every civilization that has risen and fallen. I don’t think that can be changed.


I can see your point, but I only agree to a certain point. I think every individual defines success according to their own values. a successfull peson to me is someone who does what inspires and make him/her happy. of course, those in power are those who have succeded in that particular field. not everyone wants power over other people. some people feel more compassion than greed. what I opposed in your statement was the idea that everyone wants power, and those who do not get it are unsuccessful. (but maybe I missunderstood you?)
another reason to why certain people are in power is because we let them be.

couldn't not comment about what you wrote in another comment 'we are still the greatest country'...
what is greater about the US than any other country in the world?



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 09:50 AM
link   
This with 200.000 years and then just disapiar is a bit hard to predict.
Alot can hapen on the road of 200.000 years, a minor modification and anything can change direction, for who belives in destiny it might hapen, I am not one who thinks destiny is out there set for us, I belive we make it posible.
For example, we can evolve in to something else, and we can say, that was us, look at us way back, we were people, we had 2 hands now we have 4, any thing is posible, who knows, anuthing is posible in a 200.000 years jorney.
Another example is science, in 200.000 years maybe we can travel some where else, develope tecnology that will take us there, maybe teraform planets like mars in our solar sistem and expand there since the planet is too small for all of us,maybe we will develope tecnology capabile of reaching for the stars, beiond our solar sistem and find other habitable planets similar to our own, to say this is just SCI-FI there is a strong argument against it and that is a 200.000 years of development.
To predict something for that long of a time it's just imposible, there are just too many roads, not all lead to destruction of the species.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join