This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
...what trace will be left of human presence on earth?
houses fall into ruin in decades, entire cities are swallowed up by forests or sand dunes; in 100,000,000 years will all that remains of us be fossils?
or perhaps the lunar rover, sat all alone up there on the moon. no atmosphere or erosion.. indeed, with a new battery, will it still work?
gregor
houses fall into ruin in decades, entire cities are swallowed up by forests or sand dunes; in 100,000,000 years will all that remains of us be fossils?
or perhaps the lunar rover, sat all alone up there on the moon. no atmosphere or erosion.. indeed, with a new battery, will it still work?
gregor
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
No doubt Kwik-fit will be about to sell you one.
You can't get better.....allegedly.
> or perhaps the lunar rover, sat all alone up there on the moon. no atmosphere or erosion.. indeed, with a new battery, will it still work?
No doubt Kwik-fit will be about to sell you one.
You can't get better.....allegedly.
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
wont the sun be out by then?
im sure even then a tin of spam will have survived
wont the sun be out by then?
im sure even then a tin of spam will have survived
In reply to ow arm:
Sun will be around for a few billion years yet
The tin of spam is a good point though, and what im getting at. What artefacts will survive in a recognisable form? Landfill sites must be good candidates for preserving some stuff as they are buried already.
If they can tell what some dinosaurs ate for their last meal after 150 million years, there must be some aspects of our presence on the planet that will survive, even if it is just the rubbish we dump. ...
Sun will be around for a few billion years yet
The tin of spam is a good point though, and what im getting at. What artefacts will survive in a recognisable form? Landfill sites must be good candidates for preserving some stuff as they are buried already.
If they can tell what some dinosaurs ate for their last meal after 150 million years, there must be some aspects of our presence on the planet that will survive, even if it is just the rubbish we dump. ...
In reply to Morty:
Or perhaps it will have been bolted and the bolts then chopped so many times that stanage will be entirely metal...
Or perhaps it will have been bolted and the bolts then chopped so many times that stanage will be entirely metal...
In reply to sbc_10:
For Heaven's sake can you not even get THAT right?
It was "You can't get QUICKER than a Kwik-Fit fitter"
I despair!
> You can't get better.....allegedly.
For Heaven's sake can you not even get THAT right?
It was "You can't get QUICKER than a Kwik-Fit fitter"
I despair!
In reply to sbc_10:
As always, I am very happy to be corrected. Thank you!
Obviously my own experience of always being able to get better (if not always kwikker) than a Kwik Fit fitter has confused my memory
And I think my imagined version works better as a jingle too!
As always, I am very happy to be corrected. Thank you!
Obviously my own experience of always being able to get better (if not always kwikker) than a Kwik Fit fitter has confused my memory
And I think my imagined version works better as a jingle too!
Post edited at 00:13
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
You'd think building materials, plastics or embalmed bodies are much more likely to be preserved in deposits than ancient animals, plants and footprints. Hence we'd leave lots behind.
You'd think building materials, plastics or embalmed bodies are much more likely to be preserved in deposits than ancient animals, plants and footprints. Hence we'd leave lots behind.
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
I saw a documentary on the telly on this sort of question a while ago. They predicted that the last traces of us would be the huge stone carved monuments like Mount Rushmore.
Interestingly they also reckoned that a lot of the old Roman concrete constructions might well out last the modern concrete buildings. This was because the steel reinforcing bars would eventually rust and brake apart the concrete from inside.
I saw a documentary on the telly on this sort of question a while ago. They predicted that the last traces of us would be the huge stone carved monuments like Mount Rushmore.
Interestingly they also reckoned that a lot of the old Roman concrete constructions might well out last the modern concrete buildings. This was because the steel reinforcing bars would eventually rust and brake apart the concrete from inside.
In reply to youngtom:
I dont see how the reinforcing bars would brake or break the concrete, it may weaken it but Id say that the stone monuments in south america e.g. mayan would outlast all
I dont see how the reinforcing bars would brake or break the concrete, it may weaken it but Id say that the stone monuments in south america e.g. mayan would outlast all
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Tony Robinson and the Time Team crew will still be getting excited at the prospect of digging up a Roman Villa.
Tony Robinson and the Time Team crew will still be getting excited at the prospect of digging up a Roman Villa.
In reply to ow arm:
It was the expansion as it rusted that would eventually lead to the concrete cracking
> I dont see how the reinforcing bars would brake or break the concrete,
It was the expansion as it rusted that would eventually lead to the concrete cracking
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
100 Ma would erase all obvious traces of mankind from the surface of the Earth, although I'm sure some traces of use will be left in the fossil record. Probably not many actual fossils of humans, as the vast majority of humans are buried in a fashion that is not conducive to fossilisation (most corpses and bones rot away fairly quickly) or are burnt. Fossils of humans might be preserved in situations where they are buried rapidly and the sediment lithifies rapidly, e.g. in large landslides or in anoxic estuarine muds.
Buildings don't last for long, and their remains are typically redistributed, i.e. sent to dumps or re-used as aggregate. Cement/concrete - if lithified - would probably end up as some sort of funny carbonate-silicate mixture.
Less obvious traces of man would still exist, for instance the delta-C13 ratio in carbonate minerals deposited in the Anthropocene would probably be out of whack, given fossil fuel combustion etc.
100 Ma would erase all obvious traces of mankind from the surface of the Earth, although I'm sure some traces of use will be left in the fossil record. Probably not many actual fossils of humans, as the vast majority of humans are buried in a fashion that is not conducive to fossilisation (most corpses and bones rot away fairly quickly) or are burnt. Fossils of humans might be preserved in situations where they are buried rapidly and the sediment lithifies rapidly, e.g. in large landslides or in anoxic estuarine muds.
Buildings don't last for long, and their remains are typically redistributed, i.e. sent to dumps or re-used as aggregate. Cement/concrete - if lithified - would probably end up as some sort of funny carbonate-silicate mixture.
Less obvious traces of man would still exist, for instance the delta-C13 ratio in carbonate minerals deposited in the Anthropocene would probably be out of whack, given fossil fuel combustion etc.
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
My question is who or what will be inhabiting the earth in100,0002014?
My question is who or what will be inhabiting the earth in100,0002014?
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
I think the concrete structure around the chernobyl reactor would still be there as would the stumps of the great pryamids, assuming no new glaciers. There would also be glass bottles everywhere.
I think the concrete structure around the chernobyl reactor would still be there as would the stumps of the great pryamids, assuming no new glaciers. There would also be glass bottles everywhere.
In reply to Lusk:
No, the big endians and little endians would still be scrapping.
SteveD
> It'll be one gigantic Islamic state with everyone living in peace.
No, the big endians and little endians would still be scrapping.
SteveD
In reply to verygneiss:
there would also be evidence of things 'missing' i presume- ie the coal and oil reserves we have burned. though after 100million years, i guess that's long enough for some of that carbon to be recycled into more oil and gas?
what about cities? i watched something about skara brae last night, it was buried by sand for 5000 (?) years then re-emerged. if it had been buried progressively more deeply, in what became a sandstone layer, what would be left of it? not much, i guess, its very small
but what about Manhattan? or toyko? cities cover vast areas, and have immense amount of materials in them. unless they are systematically removed (and that seems unlikely), they are bound to remain in some form, slowly decaying. what is likely to be the end result of them if buried in sediment and lithified? will any recognisable 'structure' remain, or will it just be an unusual layer of rock, but otherwise homogenous?
cheers
gregor
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
>
>
> Less obvious traces of man would still exist, for instance the delta-C13 ratio in carbonate minerals deposited in the Anthropocene would probably be out of whack, given fossil fuel combustion etc.
>
>
> Less obvious traces of man would still exist, for instance the delta-C13 ratio in carbonate minerals deposited in the Anthropocene would probably be out of whack, given fossil fuel combustion etc.
there would also be evidence of things 'missing' i presume- ie the coal and oil reserves we have burned. though after 100million years, i guess that's long enough for some of that carbon to be recycled into more oil and gas?
what about cities? i watched something about skara brae last night, it was buried by sand for 5000 (?) years then re-emerged. if it had been buried progressively more deeply, in what became a sandstone layer, what would be left of it? not much, i guess, its very small
but what about Manhattan? or toyko? cities cover vast areas, and have immense amount of materials in them. unless they are systematically removed (and that seems unlikely), they are bound to remain in some form, slowly decaying. what is likely to be the end result of them if buried in sediment and lithified? will any recognisable 'structure' remain, or will it just be an unusual layer of rock, but otherwise homogenous?
cheers
gregor
In reply to Red Rover:
yes, that's interesting- what artefacts are there that will not change? plastics degrade, and ferrous metals rust. what about arfefact made of gold? does glass 'degrade' over time (it breaks, but does its chemical composition change?)
and given the 'survival' of living object in their original shape eg petrified logs, is it possible that in certain conditions peoples' remains or artefacts might survive such periods more or less intact- i'm thinking of mummified remains on volcanoes in the high puna de atacama (as long as the volcano doesnt erupt i guess!)
cheers
gregor
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
>
> I think the concrete structure around the chernobyl reactor would still be there as would the stumps of the great pryamids, assuming no new glaciers. There would also be glass bottles everywhere.
>
> I think the concrete structure around the chernobyl reactor would still be there as would the stumps of the great pryamids, assuming no new glaciers. There would also be glass bottles everywhere.
yes, that's interesting- what artefacts are there that will not change? plastics degrade, and ferrous metals rust. what about arfefact made of gold? does glass 'degrade' over time (it breaks, but does its chemical composition change?)
and given the 'survival' of living object in their original shape eg petrified logs, is it possible that in certain conditions peoples' remains or artefacts might survive such periods more or less intact- i'm thinking of mummified remains on volcanoes in the high puna de atacama (as long as the volcano doesnt erupt i guess!)
cheers
gregor
In reply to eltankos:
yes, the stones' 100,000,000th anniversary gig is bound to be a good one! set list wont have changed much though i bet...
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
>
> Keith Richards would still be going.
>
> Keith Richards would still be going.
yes, the stones' 100,000,000th anniversary gig is bound to be a good one! set list wont have changed much though i bet...
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
100Ma is a long long time, even by geological standards. There would be pronounced difference in the shape and position of the continents as we see them today (i.e. African rift valley would probably be a shallow sea by that time, splitting Africa into two, N and S America no longer joined, SE Asia totally different shape etc).
Cities are pretty tiny in comparison. A few million years of weathering, ice ages, crustal movement, sea level change, etc and they would be levelled to nothing. You might have some fairly thin localised rock formations as a result of all the concrete (silica rich etc), and if lucky might have some limited preservation of hard material (bricks/bits of concrete etc) if said city was somewhere fairly geologically stable and subject to ‘rapid’ burial in sediment. Most Asian coastal cities wouldn't fair well as they are located on a destructive plate margin.
You might see the result of the current on-going mass extinction in the fossil record (i.e. lots of species suddenly being absent).
100Ma is a long long time, even by geological standards. There would be pronounced difference in the shape and position of the continents as we see them today (i.e. African rift valley would probably be a shallow sea by that time, splitting Africa into two, N and S America no longer joined, SE Asia totally different shape etc).
Cities are pretty tiny in comparison. A few million years of weathering, ice ages, crustal movement, sea level change, etc and they would be levelled to nothing. You might have some fairly thin localised rock formations as a result of all the concrete (silica rich etc), and if lucky might have some limited preservation of hard material (bricks/bits of concrete etc) if said city was somewhere fairly geologically stable and subject to ‘rapid’ burial in sediment. Most Asian coastal cities wouldn't fair well as they are located on a destructive plate margin.
You might see the result of the current on-going mass extinction in the fossil record (i.e. lots of species suddenly being absent).
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
I know the OP said on earth, but he did also talk about lunar rovers, so I think things in space count?
Most satellites will have re-entered and burned up. Low earth orbit sats experience a tiny amount of drag from the wisps of the upper atmosphere, without fuel to make orbital corrections, they eventually fall back to earth. A few hundred years would probably clear low earth orbit.
Satellites in geostationary orbits, and other high orbits, will last longer. But those orbits are not ultimately stable, they get perturbed by the moon and other planets, and gradually change into orbits which come closer to earth. It would probably take thousands of years, but they too will eventually fall to earth.
Objects on the moon may last a lot longer, I don't know. The moon has no weather, and little in the way of tectonics. But it does get bursts of tectonics after big asteroid hits, perhaps that will destroy the remains of the various missions.
But there are a few objects mankind has put into space, or plans to put up soon, which may last the time. Voyager 1 and 2 are well on their way out of the solar system. They are moving fast enough that they will not fall back, and the sheer emptiness of deep space means they have a good chance of surviving a long time. Though after 100,000,000 years they will have put a great many other stars between them and the sun. There's also the Lagrangian points (L4 and L5 anyway), satellites placed at these will last longer than those placed in orbit about the earth, but a hundred million years? I doubt it.
Interesting question.
I know the OP said on earth, but he did also talk about lunar rovers, so I think things in space count?
Most satellites will have re-entered and burned up. Low earth orbit sats experience a tiny amount of drag from the wisps of the upper atmosphere, without fuel to make orbital corrections, they eventually fall back to earth. A few hundred years would probably clear low earth orbit.
Satellites in geostationary orbits, and other high orbits, will last longer. But those orbits are not ultimately stable, they get perturbed by the moon and other planets, and gradually change into orbits which come closer to earth. It would probably take thousands of years, but they too will eventually fall to earth.
Objects on the moon may last a lot longer, I don't know. The moon has no weather, and little in the way of tectonics. But it does get bursts of tectonics after big asteroid hits, perhaps that will destroy the remains of the various missions.
But there are a few objects mankind has put into space, or plans to put up soon, which may last the time. Voyager 1 and 2 are well on their way out of the solar system. They are moving fast enough that they will not fall back, and the sheer emptiness of deep space means they have a good chance of surviving a long time. Though after 100,000,000 years they will have put a great many other stars between them and the sun. There's also the Lagrangian points (L4 and L5 anyway), satellites placed at these will last longer than those placed in orbit about the earth, but a hundred million years? I doubt it.
Interesting question.
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Glass is very stable chemically even up to millions of years as its basically sand. If you burried an empty wine bottle in your garden assuming no mechanical stress broke it it would be fine in 100000 years
Glass is very stable chemically even up to millions of years as its basically sand. If you burried an empty wine bottle in your garden assuming no mechanical stress broke it it would be fine in 100000 years
In reply to Red Rover:
A good vintage perhaps
> Glass is very stable chemically even up to millions of years as its basically sand. If you burried an empty wine bottle in your garden assuming no mechanical stress broke it it would be fine in 100000 years
A good vintage perhaps
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future
Some very interesting ideas and points here.
50,000 years - Niagara Falls will eroded 32km back to lake Erie, and will cease to exist.
1Ma Neil Armstrong's footsteps on the moon will be gone due top 'space weathering'.
2Ma years Grand Canyon will be a big valley.
10Ma years for bio-diversity to rebound from present extinction, although nature back ground extinction rates will mean most current species will have disappeared by this time anyway.
50Ma closing of the med basin and new mountain range of similar scale to the Himalaya in its place.
60Ma years Rockies will be totally eroded.
Crazy stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future
Some very interesting ideas and points here.
50,000 years - Niagara Falls will eroded 32km back to lake Erie, and will cease to exist.
1Ma Neil Armstrong's footsteps on the moon will be gone due top 'space weathering'.
2Ma years Grand Canyon will be a big valley.
10Ma years for bio-diversity to rebound from present extinction, although nature back ground extinction rates will mean most current species will have disappeared by this time anyway.
50Ma closing of the med basin and new mountain range of similar scale to the Himalaya in its place.
60Ma years Rockies will be totally eroded.
Crazy stuff.
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
And as I've just discovered, this chap has helpfully written a book answering your question exactly!
http://web.stanford.edu/dept/archaeology/cgi-bin/archaeolog/?p=239
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Earth-After-Us-legacy/dp/0199214972
Geologist Jan Zalasiewicz takes the reader one hundred million years into the future, long after the human race became extinct, to explore what will remain of humanity's brief but dramatic sojourn on planet Earth.
And as I've just discovered, this chap has helpfully written a book answering your question exactly!
http://web.stanford.edu/dept/archaeology/cgi-bin/archaeolog/?p=239
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Earth-After-Us-legacy/dp/0199214972
Geologist Jan Zalasiewicz takes the reader one hundred million years into the future, long after the human race became extinct, to explore what will remain of humanity's brief but dramatic sojourn on planet Earth.
In reply to Phil79:
thanks!
some really good answers here...
anyone got any ideas about the chance of 'rare survivals' in extreme environments- eg on antarctica, or ulta-desert environments like the atacama? with little or no decay, and in a stable geological situation (the atacama has been 'hyperarid' for 3 million years already, dry valleys in antarctica ? similar), how long could intact evidence of human passing, or even human remains, persist...?
cheers
gregor
thanks!
some really good answers here...
anyone got any ideas about the chance of 'rare survivals' in extreme environments- eg on antarctica, or ulta-desert environments like the atacama? with little or no decay, and in a stable geological situation (the atacama has been 'hyperarid' for 3 million years already, dry valleys in antarctica ? similar), how long could intact evidence of human passing, or even human remains, persist...?
cheers
gregor
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
I would have thought that there is an extremely good chance that our planet will be hit by some giant asteroid before then.
Its happened numerous times in the past. Some of the impacts have been so big that there would have been no chance of any life surviving had life been around when they impacted.
The Gulf of Mexico is the result of an asteroid hit.
I would have thought that there is an extremely good chance that our planet will be hit by some giant asteroid before then.
Its happened numerous times in the past. Some of the impacts have been so big that there would have been no chance of any life surviving had life been around when they impacted.
The Gulf of Mexico is the result of an asteroid hit.
In reply to Dave Perry:
Its a practical certainty on that sort of timescale that we would be hit by another big asteroid.
The one you're referring to occurred at the end of the Cretaceous and probably wiped out the dinosaurs, along with an estimated 75% of all marine life. The likely impact site is the Chicxulub crater, not the whole Gulf of Mexico (that formed later), but a massive crater anyway at over a 100 miles across.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_crater
There have been bigger mass extinctions, the largest found in the fossil record so far occurred at the end of Permian (250Ma ago), in phases over 10s of millions of years, resulting in an estimated 95% of marine life disappearing, and 75% of land dwelling vertebrates. Although the causes of that one are unclear, asteroid impact may have been a factor, along with massive flood basalt eruptions, and various interrelated climate change. Aptly referred to as the 'The Great Dying'.
Its a practical certainty on that sort of timescale that we would be hit by another big asteroid.
The one you're referring to occurred at the end of the Cretaceous and probably wiped out the dinosaurs, along with an estimated 75% of all marine life. The likely impact site is the Chicxulub crater, not the whole Gulf of Mexico (that formed later), but a massive crater anyway at over a 100 miles across.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_crater
There have been bigger mass extinctions, the largest found in the fossil record so far occurred at the end of Permian (250Ma ago), in phases over 10s of millions of years, resulting in an estimated 95% of marine life disappearing, and 75% of land dwelling vertebrates. Although the causes of that one are unclear, asteroid impact may have been a factor, along with massive flood basalt eruptions, and various interrelated climate change. Aptly referred to as the 'The Great Dying'.
In reply to JimboWizbo:
I dunno. Some cheap supermarket ones are like golf balls wrapped in leather. There's some of those I reckon will still be intact when all other trace of our presence has been reduced to dust....
;-D
I dunno. Some cheap supermarket ones are like golf balls wrapped in leather. There's some of those I reckon will still be intact when all other trace of our presence has been reduced to dust....
;-D
In reply to Phil79:
Sounds like some species have always survived and then evolved into species such as us and everything else to fill the ecological niches.
Sounds like some species have always survived and then evolved into species such as us and everything else to fill the ecological niches.
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
We can only hope that we've been Contacted and rescued long before then.
We can only hope that we've been Contacted and rescued long before then.
In reply to Dave Garnett:
Don't worry, we'll be long extinct (probably by our own hand) before another asteroid turns up!
Don't worry, we'll be long extinct (probably by our own hand) before another asteroid turns up!
In reply to ericinbristol:
They might not have been driven for a few millenia - as there will probably be no one to drive them, but there will still be enough of them around by the time the next species to evolve needs taxis!
> The only cars being driven will be Skoda Octavias.
They might not have been driven for a few millenia - as there will probably be no one to drive them, but there will still be enough of them around by the time the next species to evolve needs taxis!
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...