100 million years AD
September 26th, 2008(PhysOrg.com) -- Jan Zalasiewicz, a lecturer in geology at the University of Leicester, has published a new study looking at the lasting impression made by mankind -100 million years hence. He takes the perspective of alien explorers arriving on earth - their geologists study the layers of rock, using the many clues to piece together its history over several billion years.
A story unfolds of moving and changing continents, rising and falling oceans, ice ages, and evidence of life going back many millions of years. They grow familiar with its phases of change, the rise of great new ecosystems, and occasional catastrophic collapses of life. But then they stumble on something quite different in a thin layer of rock: a striking signal of climate changes, extinctions and strange movements of wildlife across the planet. Following this trail, decoding clues in the rocks takes them to the petrified remains of cities, and finally to the fossilized bones of those, long dead, who built them.
Dr Zalasiewicz said: "From the perspective of 100 million years in the future–a geologist's view–the reign of humans on Earth would seem very short: we would almost certainly have died out long before then. What footprint will we leave in the rocks? What would have become of our great cities, our roads and tunnels, our cars, our plastic cups in the far distant future? What fossils would we leave behind?
"My study shows how scientists put together clues from the rocks to understand the past, its landscapes and climate, and the nature of the creatures that inhabited it. A thin layer of silt here, a trace formed by a crawling worm there–the clues are often subtle and difficult to read. But by such clues would future geologists–whether hyper-evolved rat or alien visitor–work out our story. My study explores which of our structures are likely to leave traces, and what future explorers might make of us and the impact we made on our environment.
"Looking to the distant future gives us a warning for the present: our activities have already left a significant footprint on the planet, and not a flattering one. It is not too late to limit it. We would not wish to be dubbed by future explorers the 'amazingly clever and utterly foolish two-legged ape'."
Provided by University of Leicester
May 22, 2009 |
not rated yet |
0
After 100 million years you will find probably very little, if not no trace of human beings outside of areas where you may find bone fossils.
Although our construction seems very strong to us, this study was performed 5 years ago by a few institutions and they found that most likely nothing will remain from our civilizations. The buildings will crumble and rot, the iron structures will rust away, the roads and cars will be swallowed up by plant life and subduction, and that's about it.
Okay... raise your hand if you're planning to go extinct. Anybody?
Didn't think so. Cripes... What's 100 million years? Dinosaurs didn't have language, lasers, or liberals, and they lasted almost twice as long!
I'm so confused...
Future alien archeologists will find a crust COMPOSED of fallen sputniks.
j/k go LHC!
What I've always found curious and ironic about the proselytes of MMGW is how closely their world-view parallels that of pre-Renaissance, pre-humanism Christianity: Humanity is inherently evil, anathemic, and subversive to the "natural order".
Their eschatological bent, however, is far less kind and actually outright rabid, requiring no less than the destruction of all humanity for the sake of the poor planet and our (hopeful) supplantation by some wiser, greener successor species.
I am willing to entertain a balance of FACTS and measurements -- not homilies.
I'd like to welcome you to our club. jscroft will teach you the secret handshake, and you can see Modernmystic for your membership pin.
Thus we know that humans are... delicious.
We'll do it. We're crafty.
I'd direct you to read the actual study rather than the blurb on Physorg before you pass judgement on our commentary.
Wait... Aren't WE hyper-evolved rats??
Excuse me while I have an existential crisis.
No we have one, it's made from baby seal fur. Out of season at the moment, we're debating going with polar bear bone.
Heheh! We are indeed hyper-evolved rats. That is very funny. It's funny 'cause it's true.
"But then they stumble on something quite different in a thin layer of rock: a striking signal of climate changes, extinctions and strange movements of wildlife across the planet."
What is wrong with *me* is that I call it zealotry and not scientific inquiry when, as in so many similar articles on this site, the author treats mmgw as though it were as inexorable and established as the gravitational constant.
Any scientific-minded person worth his salt, when posed a question like "will Antwerp be hit in the next 5 minutes by a rogue asteroid bedecked with signs reading 'Meat Is Murder!' and having racks upon racks of Che Guevara T-Shirts" would almost certainly reply: "That would be *highly* improbable."
The point of my awful hyperbole being that the summary of the author's view on mankind's environmental impact is written as though it was accepted fact -- a stealthy rhetorical technique that (surprise) I expect from political and agenda-driven propaganda pieces, but not from scientific inquiries.
Whew! Perhaps I should get a life....
No what was that article about?
But the Squid People are substantially more intelligent and tremendously more awesome. Therefore, the human race will not survive.
Q.E.D.
--- Hopefully between now and 100 million years hence we will have sorted out our current environmental difficulties and built an environmenentally sustainable and enjoyable civilization (read: no Puritanism here, the only worthwhile reason to preserve the environment is for human enjoyment and survival).
Given that the biology will be different they'd probably consider us to be rat poison, for their version of rats...
As for MMGW...that's the stock ticker for Mass Megwatts Wind Power, Inc., right?
I don't think that's what he's saying. He's saying humanity is inherently stupid. That it may drown itself in its own excrement.
Carlin's right ... the planet's not in trouble. The question is whether we can respond to threats created by our technology. The response to GW -- tribal chest-thumping and disinformation campaigns -- does not inspire confidence, any more than the willingness to continue with nuclear power without a working long-term storage plan.
There are some problems:
1) Not all reviewers are impartial,
2) Not all peer reviewed journals look for impartial reviewers,
3) In some subject areas there are very few experts so the pool of peers to do the review are small,
4) There is the 'me too' effect where everybody is either totally for or against something with no middle ground,
5) Some pretty flaky journals exist that are 'peer reviewed' by their own flaky ilk...
I don't have an opinion on MMGW. It might be true, it might not. I don't have the information to determine one way or another. And thus people discussing MMGW doesn't bother me in the least.
Most of you have made up your minds that it isn't (or probably isn't) true, and thus you get horribly aggravated when you see someone contradict your decided belief and feel the need to immediately start kicking and screaming. What are you hoping to accomplish by spamming the comments section of this article with comments like "Redirected to Phantasyorg.com".
You think you know everything? So do the Christians and MMGW fanatics. Why don't you fools all go form a great big delusional know-it-alls club and shut up for a while.
Often when anthropologist find an unknown object they label it as a 'ritual item.' What would the imaginary future civilization think of our remains?
We often speak of poisoning and destroying our planet but it has happened before. The first plant life 'poisoned' our atmosphere with oxygen, driving anaerobic bacteria into extreme biomes and paving the way for the cambrian explosion.
well, but then you should compare dinossaurs with mammals, or at least with primates. You should compare humans against SPECIFIC dinossaurs species. Most of them were short lived compared with the dinosaurs as a group of species.
Anyway, if geologists consider it will be so hard to detect traces of human intelligence, 100 million years from now... wouldnt it be difficult for US HUMANS to detect traces of animal intelligence on Earth 100 million years ago? Who knows? Maybe some dinossaur species got to an intelligent level, but its just to hard to notice their traces.
Very valid point. Someone give this man a hand.
One quibble. While there may indeed have been an intelligent dino species their brain size and brain mass to body size ratios of every species we've looked at so far were probably not intelligent at all. The only possible exceptions were the small bodied predators.
Well there's been a lot of research in the way of size to intellect ratio and seeing if it does infact hold true. A lot of the results of that research are indicating that complexity vs size has more to do with ability and intellect. Problem is I'm pretty sure we'll never see an actual dinosaur brain above and beyond the minor indentations and growth patterns on the inside of their cranial cavity.
If you think about it, the same is true about most proponents of the theory of Evolution. If you really think about it.
Yah, I walked away for a few days.
Look, the people you're talking about are objecting to a pervasive mode of thought. It reaches into every facet of life--INCLUDING science--and is CLEARLY recognizable by both its underlying premises and its style of argumentation.
This article is a somewhat weak example of the genre, but obviously still strong enough for us to have a little fun with.
Here's an idea: if our ideas really bug you that much, be a good liberal and establish a bunch of fake accounts so you can single-handedly down-mod the entire conversation out of existence. :)
Case in point. The point is that a theory, when it becomes popular enough, will become a fact. Man-made Global Warming is already a fact in the minds of many. Philosophies are built on it. Politics are attached to it. Laws are passed for it. Movies are made about it. It becomes immune to question or debate.
This bothers some people, and it should.
A theory is not a fact. It is a model that transforms old facts into falsifiable predictions regarding new facts.
Perhaps you meant to suggest that a theory, when its elements achieve some critical degree of penetration into the collective romantic consciousness of the public, acquires a degree of independence such that it becomes entirely decoupled from the original.
At that point, resultant philosophies, policies, and feature films reflect the new meme, not the old theory, and neither Hell nor High Water nor Pure Reason can ever bring the two into useful contact again.
If that's what you meant, then I couldn't agree with you more! :)
(you're not a quibbler are you?)