Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => The Environment => Topic started by: smartasafruit on 11/02/2021 14:26:52
-
What would happen if all of humanity vanishes in one second? Like just vanish and leaf all of our buildings and so on, but not our decaying bodies. Would that stop the climate change in an instant, or are we too far along by now? Would the rainforest slowly grow back, or is it lost forever? Can almost extinct species come back and repopulate areas where humans used to live instantly?
-
What would happen if all of humanity vanishes in one second? Like just vanish and leaf all of our buildings and so on, but not our decaying bodies. Would that stop the climate change in an instant, or are we too far along by now? Would the rainforest slowly grow back, or is it lost forever? Can almost extinct species come back and repopulate areas where humans used to live instantly?
Look up a book called: "The World Without Us" by Alan Weisman
It covers this exact subject. It starts from the time at which we disappear, and goes and extrapolates forward from there over time.
-
What would happen if humanity vanishes
The newspapers would say it was because of the EU.
-
Hey there!
Another aspect is that the subways of diverse cities would flood after the disappearance of the humanity. Nobody would for instance regulate the groundwater and the pumps.
The buildings would take hundreds of years to degrade and the nature would slowly take over again. But it would also take millions of years until the nature would be completely recovered from our actions.
Moreover, the effects of the climate change would still be there. And the CO2 would not vanish with our disappearance.
-
If humanity vanishes, any successor species will have a difficult job, as we've used up most of the oil.
-
Not a problem. No other species needs fossil fuels. Indeed half of humanity seems to exist with little or no oil consumption.
-
Hey Guys,
I would agree with you. If you assume that from now on both people and their lives (i.e. buildings etc) disappeared, it would still take centuries for the environment and nature to recover and adapt to the animals. I also guess that climate change could be "stopped", but that would also take decades or rather centuries.
Best regards :)
-
Worth a look at the exclusion zone around Chernobyl. It had pretty well reverted to primeval forest within 20 years after human evacuation. Deer arrived early, quickly followed by wolves and bears. Przewalski horses are thriving and I suspect feral pigs are having a great time if they haven't been displaced by wild boar. There are now enough mature trees to support an entire avian ecology from sparrows to owls.
-
Not a problem. No other species needs fossil fuels. Indeed half of humanity seems to exist with little or no oil consumption.
Yes but it's not just the oil. A future successor species, would find problems if they tried to build a new industrial civilisation.
Where would they get their essential metals from. Most of the easily available, near-surface supplies of iron and copper ores, have been plundered by us and exhausted.
The remaining ores are deep-level, and difficult to mine without machinery. Which can't be manufactured without the
metal from the ores.
The successor species would thus be in a "Catch-22" predicament. So they'd probably give up and go back to painting cave-walls and chanting nostalgic folk-songs of the "Old People" who had huge cities celestially lit, and didn't eat each other in hard winters
-
Where would they get their essential metals from. Most of the easily available, near-surface supplies of iron and copper ores, have been plundered by us and exhausted.
It's not like all of the metals in our buildings and machinery would vanish if we were to disappear. Erosion and oxidation would degrade them, perhaps even returning them to the ground eventually. So a future species would still have access to the metals. I'm also somewhat doubtful that we have already mined a significant portion of easily-accessible metal ores (but am willing to be corrected if the relevant data is provided).
-
Why would any humanoid species succeed us if we were extinguished in one second? That could only happen if the world were suddenly to become toxic to the genus homo (there being no other extant species). The evolutionary split from other apes happened a very long time ago and no other primate shares anything like our genetic makeup.
Remember the question isn't about hard times, but extinction. Nothing like a dodo has succeeded the dodo - its ecological niche has been filled by very different fauna.
-
no other primate shares anything like our genetic makeup.
Humans and chimps are about 98% similar genetically, so I find this to be an odd statement.
-
Nothing like a dodo has succeeded the dodo - its ecological niche has been filled by very different fauna.
As regards the dodo, give it a chance! I's only been extinct for 300 years or so. That's a mere blink of the eye, in evolutionary terms. Mightn't it, or some very similar bird, re-evolve to roam Mauritius in a few million years?
And just as a passing thought, do you think anyone would even remember the Dodo, if it hadn't been given such a succinct and appealing popular name?
Suppose it'd only been called by its scientific cognomen "Raphus cucullatus". Who'd remember that?
-
It's not like all of the metals in our buildings and machinery would vanish if we were to disappear. Erosion and oxidation would degrade them, perhaps even returning them to the ground eventually. So a future species would still have access to the metals.
We have found places where the copper compounds occurred at high concentrations in large amounts.
And we dug it out and distributed it all-over the whorls as pipes and cables etc.
So we have made it much more difficult to get hold of metal on an industrial scale.
Any successor to hiumans would probably end up mining our rubbish tips I'm also somewhat doubtful that we have already mined a significant portion of easily-accessible metal ores (but am willing to be corrected if the relevant data is provided).
If we hadn't used up the readily available- surface or near surface resources, we wouldn't be going to the trouble of digging deep mines.
Is further data needed?
-
no other primate shares anything like our genetic makeup.
Humans and chimps are about 98% similar genetically, so I find this to be an odd statement.
The remaining 2% took something like 5,000,000 years to evolve and produced at least 6 other hominid branches that have since disappeared. Whatever causes us to disappear is unlikely to be particularly hospitable to anything like us.
The genetic DNA similarity between pigs and human beings is 98%. Interspecies organ transplant activities between humans and pigs have even taken place, called xenotransplants.
Now there's an intelligent and robust species that is already doing well around Chernobyl, formed the US presidential cabinet from 2017 to 2021, and said he would return.
-
Is it true that humans share 70 per cent of their genes with Slime Mould? If so, that could explain politicians.
-
Unlikely. Slime mould displays characteristics of intelligent, adaptive response and collaborative problemsolving.
-
What would happen if life as in humans suddenly vanished, not much in the grand scheme of things. New forms of intelligent life will probably again emerge and and everything that is currently happening to the earth will happen again.
If intelligent life has a model we are probably doing everything that model suggests intelligent life does as it evolves and improves its existence. I don’t condemn us humans for what we have done to the earth so far as it is probably an inevitable consequence of intelligent life’s attempt to survive . Now however we are at a point in our evolution where we are able to invent technologies that will allow us to take a different path allowing us to change how we treat the world. We can’t take a step back like some would like us to do In order to protect the earth and it’s environments but we can move forward in a more sustainable way which will eventually lead to the change that is needed.
Sorry ,probably a bit off topic near the end
-
I advise you to read this.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71332.25
It's in new theories, but it's not particularly new these days and it certainly is not a theory.
This could lead to catastrophic extinction, when the climate reaches equilibrium again there may be many animals lost.
-
I really don't understand why we should be bothered about "animals".
All they do is run about, mindlessly killing and eating each other. Without any care for the cruelty and pain that this causes.
Humans are different, because we do care. We have moral standards, which make us much kinder and nicer than all the disgusting lower animals.
I look forward to a future, where all lower animals have been eliminated from Earth's lands, seas and skies.
A fully human Earth, populated entirely by humans. What's wrong with that?
-
I really don't understand why we should be bothered about "animals".
All they do is run about, mindlessly killing and eating each other. Without any care for the cruelty and pain that this causes.
Humans are different, because we do care. We have moral standards, which make us much kinder and nicer than all the disgusting lower animals.
I look forward to a future, where all lower animals have been eliminated from Earth's lands, seas and skies.
A fully human Earth, populated entirely by humans. What's wrong with that?
Whats right with that . I think this is just a post by someone who craves attention
-
You make a true point. But Isn't everyone on here seeking attention? Otherwise, why wouldn't they just keep their thoughts to themselves. Instead of posting them on the Internet.
-
Otherwise, why wouldn't they just keep their thoughts to themselves.
To educate others.
-
Otherwise, why wouldn't they just keep their thoughts to themselves.
To educate others.
Right. Not to expand your own ego. Ok, if you say so!
-
I really don't understand why we should be bothered about "animals".
All they do is run about, mindlessly killing and eating each other. Without any care for the cruelty and pain that this causes.
How many cows have you observed.
-
which make us much kinder and nicer than all the disgusting lower animals.
Yes, it's kind and nice to make animals extinct on purpose...
Right. Not to expand your own ego. Ok, if you say so!
Feel free to supply evidence that I'm here to stroke my ego.
-
Otherwise, why wouldn't they just keep their thoughts to themselves.
To educate others.
Right. Not to expand your own ego. Ok, if you say so!
Do you happen to have a mirror handy?
-
...
Thanks & Credits - Sebs . Knowledge Channel/ YouTube.
P.S. - WE are the Only species on this planet that neglect & torture & keep the numbers of all Other Species on this planet regulated & in check...Except For Our Own Numbers!
☮️
-
...
Thanks & Credits - Sebs . Knowledge Channel/ YouTube.
P.S. - WE are the Only species on this planet that neglect & torture & keep the numbers of all Other Species on this planet regulated & in check...Except For Our Own Numbers!
☮️
We are also the only species that looks after ,nurtures ,rescues & encourages the population growth of other species. We are not however the only species that enslaves other species or kills and tortures other species.
-
I really don't understand why we should be bothered about "animals".
All they do is run about, mindlessly killing and eating each other. Without any care for the cruelty and pain that this causes.
Humans are different, because we do care. We have moral standards, which make us much kinder and nicer than all the disgusting lower animals.
I look forward to a future, where all lower animals have been eliminated from Earth's lands, seas and skies.
A fully human Earth, populated entirely by humans. What's wrong with that?
🙄
WooW!
😏
Kindness & Compassion are just Stoopid words without any meaning atall!
😑
Just tryin to " Being Human " is soo hard & tuff nowadays, Right!
☹️
What a Pathetically Barbaric Post.
😔
P.S. - Evil...as has been showcased by History time & again, does Not realize it is EVIL!
🙏
-
All they do is run about, mindlessly killing and eating each other. Without any care for the cruelty and pain that this causes.
Unlike humans, who mostly despise torture and kill other humans because God tells them to do so.
AFAIK homo sapiens is the only species that hates its own kind for no rational reason or purpose.
The universe would be a more moral place without us.
-
All they do is run about, mindlessly killing and eating each other. Without any care for the cruelty and pain that this causes.
Unlike humans, who mostly despise torture and kill other humans because God tells them to do so.
AFAIK homo sapiens is the only species that hates its own kind for no rational reason or purpose.
The universe would be a more moral place without us.
How can you say that the Universe would be a more moral place without us?
The Universe has no morals whatsoever. Look at how it operates. Stars explode into supernovae, blasting and incinerating how many inhabited planets over hundreds of light-years.
Even on our planet, there are earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and tsunamis, which kill innocent people without any moral justification.
The only morals that exist in the Universe have been created by us human beings.
If humanity ceased to exist in one second, wouldn't all morals cease to exist? Do the stars care about morality?
-
The only immoral acts in the universe are committed by humans. Everything else that happens is just physics and chemistry.
-
Hi Charles!
😊
Just wanted to say " Thanks "!
🙏
I learnt a new lesson about interacting with Folks who have entirely Opposite views than yourself.
👍
The Conclusion is, no matter how distasteful anybody's views might seem, They still are Entitled to have Their Own Personal Viewpoint.
P.S. - Thank You for that lesson of Modesty & Humbleness.
😇
🙏
(U seem like a master philosopher...an Evil master that is)
🤭
Tc!
🍭
-
What is morality . Is it a standard that other beings could achieve or solely a human trait or way of thinking.
Is it possible for an animal to show a trait or perform an action which we could consider to be a moral act.
-
What is morality . Is it a standard that other beings could achieve or solely a human trait or way of thinking.
Is it possible for an animal to show a trait or perform an action which we could consider to be a moral act.
I doubt that animals are capable of performing "moral" acts, in the human sense of the term.
Animals are governed entirely by their instinctive drives. The most powerful of which are, probably, "desire" and "fear".
You can see these drives operating even in our domestic animals, such as cats and dogs. These animals might have been expected, through their thousands of years of exposure to contact with humans, to have taken on board some of our human "morality"..
Yet they haven't at all. For example, suppose you're having your dinner in the presence of your dog. Won't the dog snatch the food from your plate - driven by the dog's "desire" for food - unless you have trained the dog not to do that.
By inducing "fear" in the dog, as to the consequences of the food- snatching. The consequences needn't be anything harsh and crude, like physically beating the dog.
An angry snarl from you may suffice. Or even a scowl on your face (dogs are possibly unique in being able to interpret human facial expressions)
Whichever it is, it will induce "fear" in the dog, sufficient to override its "desire" for the food. Assuming you've kept it fairly well-fed to date. So that it's not actually starving.
Of course if the dog is starving, "desire" for food will override the "fear". Then the dog will not just eat the food on
your plate, but eventually you as well when the plate's empty.
The "morality" of these actions won't enter into the dog's head. Though you will, through its jaws.
True?
.
-
If you are talking "replacement species", give it some time.
The first mammal appeared with the dinosaurs a little over 200 million years ago.
The hominid/ape divergence was probably 10 to 20 million years ago.
Homo Sapiens (pretty similar to us) evolved 200 to 300 thousand years ago.
Homo Sapiens likely had favorable weather similar to our own during the Eemian interglacial period, a little over 100 thousand years ago.
Yet, almost all of our "modern" history (animal domestication, crops, stone construction, etc) dates to around 50 thousand years ago.
It is hard to predict what would replace us. Some of the more intelligent species may be the elephants and whales, yet they lack opposable thumbs, although the elephant trunk is extremely dexterous. There are, of course, the apes,that are perhaps 20 million years behind us. Canines?
During the next few million years, the earth will evolve significantly. The current surface will be buried. New volcanoes. Surface weathering in some places. Earthquakes and uplifting in other places. Rain forests will get buried and begin making new carbon deposits.
Have we used up all the "reduced carbon"? Not exactly. Around 3 billion years ago, our planet had a mostly Nitrogen/CO2 atmosphere. Then life turned the CO2 into oxygen and various hydrocarbons, leaving us with almost no CO2 in the atmosphere, to the point that it was almost too low for plant life during the glacial periods, and thus dangerous for all life on the planet.
There remains the amount of reduced carbon on our planet, somewhere, equivalent to about 20% atmospheric oxygen. And with all of our burning fossil fuels, we've changed that by about 0.01%. I.E. A lot of reduced carbon left somewhere.
Keep in mind that humanity also used sticks and stones for hundreds of thousands of years before finally discovering metals and smelting.
Aluminum is supposed to be relatively common. I know where I can find some green rock, probably fairly high in copper and other minerals. Silicates, of course, are critical for modern life, and extremely common.
A future society might learn to mine our current society, whether it is hunting for oxidized iron compounds to more long lived copper, brass, bronze,and various rare earth metals. Fort Knox could be literally a gold mine once it is found.
Lime is pretty good at preserving reduced iron which could be a big bonus for a developing society.
I.E. If humans were to disappear (and most animals were to survive, what we leave behind will likely be a huge benefit to a future society.
Of course, it might take quite a cataclysm to wipe out humanity, which could erase the world back to the mouse evolutionary stage
-
I doubt that animals are capable of performing "moral" acts, in the human sense of the term.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150625112010.htm
-
A future society might learn to mine our current society, whether it is hunting for oxidized iron compounds to more long lived copper, brass, bronze,and various rare earth metals. Fort Knox could be literally a gold mine once it is found.
.......what we leave behind will likely be a huge benefit to a future society.
Thanks Clifford for your very valuable and insightful post. Your post contains many interesting observations.
From these, I've selected to quote in my reply, just the one about the future use of metals.
This is because it reminds me of the 1940's SF novel "Earth Abides". In that novel, modern civilisation gets wiped out by a virulent and deadly disease, which kills off nearly everyone. Leaving only a small number of survivors.
The survivors are attempting to rebuild society. And they're having to do so from a primitive basis.. Which has reduced the survivors to using "bows and arrows".
The arrows need hard, sharp tips in order to penetrate. Where can the penetrative power be obtained?
The survivors obtain it from the millions and millions of metal coins left lying around in the debris of the old, now extinct civilisation. The old coins - the nickels, dimes and quarters, get "mined". Then hammered and beaten into new arrow-heads.
It's a long time since I read "Earth Abides", and my memory of it has faded . However I do seem to remember that one of the characters in the book - was it "Ish", raises objections to this method of "mining". On the grounds that it's not the true creation of new artefacts from raw materials, but more akin to mere "scavenging".
I think Ish gets confuted, but can't remember how.
I
-
The survivors obtain it from the millions and millions of metal coins left lying around in the debris of the old, now extinct civilisation. The old coins - the nickels, dimes and quarters, get "mined". Then hammered and beaten into new arrow-heads.
It's a long time since I read "Earth Abides", and my memory of it has faded . However I do seem to remember that one of the characters in the book - was it "Ish", raises objections to this method of "mining". On the grounds that it's not the true creation of new artefacts from raw materials, but more akin to mere "scavenging".
Scavenging will definitely be prevalent at first, but it is limited. When this resource runs out, has enough 'civilization' been recovered to accomplish actual mining of new raw materials? Thing is, our civilization has picked all the easy-to-get-to resources. They'll not find fossil fuels to run their forges, so any new civilization that arises must be built on a foundation of more renewable materials. Energy may well be attainable, but metals? Where are they going to find that except by scavenging?
The USA was able to prevail in several wars (1812 war comes to mind) because it had all these resources (wood in particular) that had been stripped out by the more mature civilization of Europe at the time. That advantage has now faltered since we've mined this continent down to the state of all the other ones now.
-
The survivors obtain it from the millions and millions of metal coins left lying around in the debris of the old, now extinct civilisation. The old coins - the nickels, dimes and quarters, get "mined". Then hammered and beaten into new arrow-heads.
It's a long time since I read "Earth Abides", and my memory of it has faded . However I do seem to remember that one of the characters in the book - was it "Ish", raises objections to this method of "mining". On the grounds that it's not the true creation of new artefacts from raw materials, but more akin to mere "scavenging".
I think Ish gets confuted, but can't remember how.
The "value" of antiquities changes over time. And, a sustenance society would likely put very low value on them.
Many of our greatest ancient treasures were mined in one form or another including the metals being stripped from the Roman Pantheon, and limestone taken from Egyptian pyramids and marble removed from other antiquities.
Even today we mine coal which we know is full of fossils, as well as many fossil stones without thought of the life that brought it into existence.
With conservation of matter, everything we have ever dug up out of the earth still exists somewhere in one form or another. Toxicity aside, our landfills could be full of precious metals for future generations.
Over the next few million years, new mineral veins will be formed or exposed, and much of earth will be reset.
-
A lot of cars would crash quite quickly. The planes that were in the air at the time would take rather longer to fall out of the sky.
Some ships might sail on for days or weeks before they hit something, or ran out of fuel.
-
With conservation of matter, everything we have ever dug up out of the earth still exists somewhere in one form or another.
But with the exception of gold- which we dig up in many places, but then bury again at the national banks, we dig up concentrated deposits of minerals, and then distribute them all over the place.
It's going to be a challenge to find shallow coal for a long time.
-
Some ships might sail on for days or weeks before they hit something, or ran out of fuel.
The SS Baychimo was a Ghost Ship sailing without crew for nearly 40 years.
Of course that is just a drop in time. However, it is possible some of the more armored military ships could sail without crew for quite some time, especially if they got caught in a current that kept them in the middle of one of the oceans.
-
The only immoral acts in the universe are committed by humans. Everything else that happens is just physics and chemistry.
But isn’t our morals and how we act ultimately also down to nothing more than chemistry and physics