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.

 

Aftermath: World Without Humans

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 05:10 AM
link   
On Friday, Global aired a show entitled "Aftermath: World Without Humans". An hour long special showing how the earth would change, if all humans were to disappear. It was a great special, I thought, and according to them, after only under a thousand years, most signs of humanity would be wiped clear of the earth.
I couldn't find a link to it on youtube, or google video, but the closest link I could find seems like it was almost the same show:

www.youtube.com...

Now, seeing this show really got me thinking about the whole topic of finding signs of previous civilizations, and life on Mars, and just what we would find, were there actually previous intelligent life there. By the end of the series, they state that the only things left on earth, after thousands of years would be our space junk on the moon. So by that way of thinking, if there were, in fact, intelligent life previously on mars, wouldn't we have then found many signs on Phobos, and Deimos, than what would be on the surface of the planet, itself? As well, Mars, being a desert planet, would cover up all signs of life pretty quickly, and deeply with its sandstorms. Were there actually to be signs of life (as in 'intelligent life') found, would that not then mean that it would have to be quite a recent civilization to have lived there?





posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by jephers0n
 



...they state that the only things left on earth, after thousands of years would be our space junk on the moon...


Ok, so in that case the Pyramids in Egypt, Stone Henge in England and the statues on Easter Island were all built within the last 1000 years. Well we better go and re-write all the history books because this TV show seems to know a lot more than the archeologists of the world.

And to assume there are artifacts on Martian moons infers that previous life on Mars was highly advanced. What if life on Mars consisted of specimens that you may find in the jungles and oceans of Earth. Or what if they were even more simple creatures than them. Does that then mean that kind of life would not be worth discovering?

Sorry, but this TV program sounds like typical sensationalism designed for entertainment value only. In other words, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story....




posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 07:07 AM
link   
This argument has been brought up in the past and I still dont believe a word of it. No, the "signs of humanity" will not be "wiped clear" in a thousand years. Much of it will be gone yes, but even if 99% would disappear that still means there's ALOT of things left visible. In particular the "damage" we inflict on nature: we cut through entire mountains for gods sake. These things will a LONG time to "wipe clear". I'm guessing we're talking more in the line of millions of years for such features.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Yes I've seen that show twice.

Yep, standing at ground level in an area with vegetation after one thousand years. Most cities would look like hilly terrain. In dry or very cold terrain the materials from man's existence would be clearly visable.

To understand what would remain you need only look at what we can find of previous cultures. if one walks over most areas of the Middle East you'll find plastic bags and.......pottery shards

Some of my favorites are, 400,000 year old wooden javelins and 14,000 Jomon pottery.

Stone tools essentially last forever (well okay until subduction or erosion get'm)

Oh good examples Merka



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Yes, I do actually understand that there would, in fact, be a lot of remnants of our culture still visible, however, after a few centuries, our main structures, being totally unkempt would degrade to the point of destruction. there would, of course still be some evidence of our being here, but only, as stated before, and in the show, in the colder climates, as well as the drier climates. My comments on searching for structures on the moons of Mars, perhaps I was a little vague. I did, in fact mean to suggest a technologically advanced civilization. I believe I mentioned about intelligent life, and not animals or lower lifeforms for the purpose of this discussion. And no, I was never trying to say that a civilization, if one existed, which did not reach a technologically advanced enough stage to begin exploring space would not be worth discovering. Quite the opposite, actually.


Originally posted by WatchNLearn


Ok, so in that case the Pyramids in Egypt, Stone Henge in England and the statues on Easter Island were all built within the last 1000 years. Well we better go and re-write all the history books because this TV show seems to know a lot more than the archeologists of the world.



No, in the show, the basic idea behind it is if all mankind was to disappear from the face of the earth. Clearly this could never really happen, but it's really just their views on what could possibly happen. Maybe I should have been clearer when I said that about remnants of our civilization on the moon, as well. They didn't say that would be the ONLY stuff left, but that it would probably be the only things left which would be preserved almost indefinitely. Some small plastics would clearly be found, as well as stainless steel objects, which would last for tens of thousands of years. With the facts that we have also dammed somewhere near 50% of the worlds rivers, after those dams break down, they would be enough to wipe clear a lot of cities quite easily. Once all of the worlds nuclear plants were to meltdown, as well, it would raise temperatures worldwide quite amazingly... another ice age could be potentially possible, which would also wipe clean a lot of remnants of our civilization. Mostly I'm just trying to think about what the evidence should be on Mars, being a desert planet, and subject to massive sandstorms. How much of it would be covered? I would assume much of it, if not even all of it would be, there.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Yes billions of tons of material would survive, from everything from cut gems to glass, brick and ceramics. Besides the odd piece of plastic.

Nukes, I believe that most plants have automatic shut down systems that will operate if the the system goes out of kilter.

Could humans rapidly disappear? Improbable but possible a disease could reduce the human population by a vast number -or an asteriod strike.

Being an archaeologist ten thousands years from now would be a formindable task. You'd almost have information overload.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
Being an archaeologist ten thousands years from now would be a formindable task. You'd almost have information overload.

"Oh look, we found these wierd two lines of rusted metal with rotted wooden beams every 50cm, lets see how far it goes!"



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by jephers0n
 


The series shows us what it would look like at a glance of the surface.

Dig down and you've still got massive, massive piles of concrete rubble, layers of asphalt, "fossil" steel (that is, steel that has been buried and corroded away, leaving a mass of iron oxide) to say nothing of the heaps and heaps and heaps of human remains - not just from the wipeout, but also from centuries of interring the dead.

There might not be a lot of detailed information left about us... but any future explorers will have our leftovers basically flashing huge neon signs announcing our existence.

Now, if there were to be massive glaciation of the sort the earth underwent during the Cryogenian period, then traces of humanity would be pretty tough to find, I imagine.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by jephers0n
 

Now, if there were to be massive glaciation of the sort the earth underwent during the Cryogenian period, then traces of humanity would be pretty tough to find, I imagine.


One of the points of the show was to illustrate about the massive earth changes that would take place once the worlds nuclear power plants explode... a new ice age would most probably form. keep in mind, once again, it was a hypothetical show, stating that humans simply dissappeared. there are no human remains, other than inanimate human tokens of civilization. therefore, there is no one to work at the electricity stations... no one to work the backup systems... the nuclear plants WOULD explode, in this hypothetical scenario. sure, it would take a few weeks before they did... because of their diesel powered backup systems. Most of them have emergency systems designed to kick in, should there be too much strain put on the grid. once the diesel gas ran out, the toxic waste would have no way to cool itself, and the plant would begin to boil. A meltdown would be next, global climates would raise exponentially, and ice caps would melt away quicker than ever (a few more mm a year). Honestly, the show raised a lot of good points, I didn't agree with a lot of it, but that's because it was based on the hypothetical idea of humanity dissapearing entirely without a trace, and whether they believe the earth could possibly repair itself.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by merka
 


I can just see that.....I once, during a field survey found something we thought might be bronze age wall and followed it, and followed it and followed it. About a click we realized we'd either made the discovery of the age or were mistaken - we were mistaken! Turned out to be a wall but a seige wall from the 10th century which had been built by piling up soil and rock some of which had Bronze age materials mixed in which were incorporated in the wall.

The rule always is, just because it looks like it is, doesn't mean it is.



the nuclear plants WOULD explode


Could you provide some source for this please?

[edit on 29/9/08 by Hanslune]



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   




Could you provide some source for this please?

[edit on 29/9/08 by Hanslune]


I already did. Watch the show. That is what everything I am saying in this thread is based upon. I'm not going to explain every part of the show, just because you don't want to search it out and watch it yourself. I'm sorry.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 10:56 AM
link   
I think he was refering to the fact of nuclear power plants exploding: they dont. Sure the steam contained by it may have an explosive effect, but the plant doesnt explode per say: on a modern plant the radiation would still be quite contained. Chernobyl was such a disaster because it lacked any kind of containment, not because of the explosion.




top topics



 
1

log in

join