"Earth After Man Is GONE!" Topic

Lugal Dan shared this with me. I found it intriguing, reminescent of "12 Monkeys" in some ways:

link

It also reminded me of "Logan's Run":

link

What do you think?

CC
TMP link

Ooops. That should read "Lugal HDan".

CC

If the rest of the planet is like my lawn, the place will be totally overgrown in about 3 months.

And this is pertinent to who/what???

Is this some sort of surprise to someone?

If you are comparing it to movies… Why not Aeon Flux as well?

It just goes to show what a destroyer man really is, the Earth would certainly be better off without us.

Nonsense. No other species on the planet (or any other planet we've found so far) has ever declared another species endangered, or made any effort to conserve it.

We do have a lot to learn about living wisely on this globe. We have made a lot of mistakes and been guilty of frightful short-sightedness. But, let's not give up on ourselves just yet.

"It just goes to show what a destroyer man really is, the Earth would certainly be better off without us."

Still better: no life whatsoever. That would be really pristine status for Earth. Imagine: no pollution, no noise, no… nothing.

Indeed, the stillness of Death is compelling.

This is from the book "The World without us" by Alan Weisman

Mankind occured, and it will go by again. To believe that nature "cares" are delusions of grandeur.

Sounds like some good ideas for modelling post-apoc terrain.

There was a nifty article in the recent Scientific American about this. The one million year snapshot was of a bronze statue still existing beneath the waves.

I think it is interesting how we expect things to stay the same. We build on coastlines, or near shifting rivers, etc, and expect a city to still be there in a couple hundred years because it has been there a couple hundred. I wonder if, in a far future (which I doubt we have), people would try to prevent things from evolving, to "conserve" current species. We've got such a short view of things. Obviously, we caused an awful lot of change, as well, so I'm not pooh-poohing conservation. But I do think we've got expectations based on a pretty short view.

andy

Ah, yet another article proving that many biologists are fascinatingly stupid people.

CC, thanks for passing on the link.

It's a little tree-huggy (but hey, I am too some times), but gives an interesing description of a possible neopaleoization setting. (I know that's not a word, but it sounds cool!)

Though I still like the "Cleopatra 2525" post-apocalypse idea. Environmental conservation programs gone horribly awry. And of course some cute girls blowing things up. :-)

I just wish environmentalists would decide what they believe. Either the ecosystem is a complex chemical reaction, in which case there is no more moral obligation to preserve it in a certain form for it's sake than there is to keep bicarbonate of soda away from vinegar; or it's some kind of god, in which case he/she/it can surely look out for her/his/itself.

Morality is a relation between moral entities, man and man, man and God but not man and chemical reaction. We can be wasteful stupid and shortsighted about the environment but the moral harm is to other men who might want to use it and can't because of our profligacy, not to the environment as an entity.

I'm sure you get as many beliefs as you get environmentalists. Heck, you can't even get people who believe in the same holy writings to agree.

At the current time, we don't really understand all of the levels of interaction in our environment. The only thing we do know is that we have to live here, and we need a wide variety of other life forms to do so. We're just not sure exactly how deep the rabbit hole goes, so to speak.

I think its safe to say that the various "feral" ecosystems on Earth have a level of resiliency since at least the more mature ones have survived numerous climate shifts and such. These would be able to fill any voids we would leave.

The more isolated ecosystems aren't as robust, which is why they keep dying off for various reasons. I'm not sure that preserving weak, isolated ecosystems is globally important, though they do hold potential for exploitation if they've developed something unique, like a particular enzyme or something.

I suspect that North Carolina, at least, would be entirely covered in kudzu in a matter of weeks.

:)

I worry whenever our lawnmower goes on the fritz.

"The only thing we do know"

Amen to all that, I just don't like to lose sight of the goal of proper environmentalism; making the best environment for people.

"Amen to all that, I just don't like to lose sight of the goal of proper environmentalism; making the best environment for people."

Which yields the question, how do you define "best"?

The best environment for a logger (at least in the short term) is probably not the same as what's best for a bird-watcher.

We do have a moral responsibility to be good "stewards". We are the only species that have ever been in a position to be stewards of our planet. I think we are learning how to do that. What happens, the next time earth throws an ice age at us, or other inescapable natural disaster, probably is pointless to consider. We'll move, rebuild, adapt, and keep going.

1066.us

Speaking as a human being, I care not how the planet fairs after my species is extinct. I care a lot about how the planet fairs while my species exists. Proper stewardship of the planet means we can hang around a long time, but if we screw it up too mauch, we'll be gone rather quickly. The dinosaurs ruled the Earth for tens of millions of years, we have barely reached 10 million and we're already speaking of doom and gloom for the species.

"No other species on the planet (or any other planet we've found so far) has ever declared another species endangered, or made any effort to conserve it."

Unfortunately, the main reason that species are endangered and need conserving is, so often, Humans.

Sue K.

Actually the main reason is that they can't adapt to new environments, just as it has always been.

Humans are a part of nature, it is in our nature to build stuff and grow animals to eat. Nobody looks at a bees nest as unnatural. Nature, if you will, gave us this brain and we forged a dominion over the earth with it.

That is how it works. We have only used our advantages to promote ourselves as any other species would.

As one of the characters on the simpson's said, "Given a chance that cow would eat you and your family."

Or something like that.

Pictors Studio – that's my position as well.

I'm going to have to echo the "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility" sentiment though. I think it's indisputable that we're the most powerful macroscopic life form on the planet right now.

I'm in favor of keeping things way, but we need to make sure we're not setting ourselves up for another big extinction event by our methods.

I prefer to look on the bright side.

For thousands of years if you wanted some gloom and doom you really only had a selection of tired old religious products. Despite never really delivering on their hype (a few barbarian invasions and the occasional plague aside), if you wanted that end-of-the-world thrill they were the only game in town.

Then came atomic weapons and with them, consumer choice.

Now of course we are positively spoiled for apocalyptic thrills, economic and social breakdown, environmental disaster, super-epidemic, crop failure, resource depletion, let's face we've never had it so good, in a bad way.

Admittedly the aim of all this fear mongering is still control, but we now have so many choices about what fear to surrender our liberty and our wealth to. So the next time you are complaining about a new tithe on energy consumption, another bloated pointless bureaucracy or just being arrested for no reason and held without charge, be grateful you live in the land of consumer choice!

Basileus66: "Still better: no life whatsoever. That would be really pristine status for Earth. Imagine: no pollution, no noise, no… nothing."

I see what you mean. Crickets kept me up all night. They've gotta go too. :)

CC

Imagine trees and roots like this, but in the middle of New York, DC, or any other currently-well-known city:

picture
picture
link

800 years seems to have done wonders to those jungle sites. I'd say that the same look would be expected for most US cities (particularly in the south) 1000-1500 years after they are abandoned (for whatever reason), if they don't sink into swamps first that is.

CC

Since Pictors Studio brought it up: Adapt or go extinct. Yep, that is the evolutionary force that drives the diversity of species on this planet. We humans have added an element to this: Rather than simply adapting to the environment as it forces its relatively slow (in a living creature's experience of time) change on habits through seasonal, and geologic progressions and cycles; we humans have evolved the ability to adapt our environment to suit ourselves, thus accelerating the rate of change in the environment. This means that other organisms who are more adapted to living "in harmony" with a slower rate of change are less likely to adapt to changes caused by humans (good and bad).

I concur with the several admonitions of "Stewardship". Since we are the most "advanced" of the social species that dominate the planet, it behooves us at this point to take a more conscientious approach to the use of the planet's resources and preserve them for future generations both human and non-human!

Mr. Weisman's book is a very thought provoking one…but I am not ready to relinquish control of the planet to pre-human agriculture forces just yet. Modify my own behavior to better suit the existing environment and correct the despoiling that has been perpetrated…sure, but to embrace a Luddite Stone-Age lifestyle, I am not prepared to sacrifice my computer or my minis for that!

Andy Welkley
"Your Phrendlee Hevy Phyzx T-chrr"

Ok. Based on the article on the first link . . .

For a partially depopulated Earth (or, at least a long-abandoned urban center):

1) I would probably have a full board/table painted swamp green/brown, with a few highlights to break the monotony.

2) Over this, I would place a plexiglass sheet for depth.

3) I would then make each building ruin or pile a separate island.

How does that sound, in principle at least?

CC
TMP link

How does that sound, in principle at least?

Sounds good. Depending on scale, that could be quite the table.

Well considering how quickly nature seems to reclaim things we build, I would suspect that not many tall buildings would remain standing for long.

So, even with 28mm figures, a 40" by 80" table could work, I think, for post-apocalyptic gang/tribal skirmishes, away teams from advanced worlds (Greys or whatever), hunting expeditions from priviledged domed cities (from protected humans or invading aliens), and even for Thundarr the Barbarian!

CC

Yes, definitely alien "salvage crews", some feral human tribes, maybe a few uplifted apes (you know, for kids), and random arrivals of the new megafauna that will no doubt quickly evolve. Having a few "Vault Dwellers" would be cool too, especially if you "Morlock" them out a little.

"maybe a few uplifted apes (you know, for kids)"

For kids??? LOL.

I have about 25 unpainted Eureka OOP Planet of the Apes that could venture into the forbiden lands to hunt humans . . . if they can brave the waters.

Hey, how about released zoo animals (lions, wolves, crocs, large constrictor snakes, etc.)?

CC

Crocs are pretty good survivors, and if temperatures warm up, then they'd be able to increase their distribution (especially if more of the planet is under-water).

Mammals are tougher to predict- basically because in evolutionary terms they're very marginal. Mammals generate the lowest number of species of any vertebrate group, and a good chunk of these are bats. The combination of being warm-blooded, and investing heavily in parental care, makes persistence (and speciation rates) low. Or more bluntly, extinction rates are pretty high.

Any cat evolution would probably come via small cats, OTOH a lot of big cats are held in captivity in North America. The commonly cited number for the USA is 10,000 captive tigers (a lot in Texas). The largest wild population of tigers is in India, but I'm not optimistic about their survival. When the Indians release their latest census figures, I'm expecting a catastrophic drop. Numbers could be as low as 1400 in the wild (down a lot from the last census figures of 4000, about 5 years ago). So, there may be the seeds of a new Pantheris tigris americanensis to play with.

Chthonic ruminations

B

Chthoniid,

Those are extremely encouraging points, from a gaming point of view, of course.

Thanks!!!

CC

A bewildering array of escaped "rescue' zoo animals could have taken hold, with the Planet of the Apes guys being the most advanced of them.

A possible game could be a classic "Mordheim" like salvage junkett, with alien anthropologists, Feral Sapiens and curious monkeys/apes seeking artifacts in the Forbidden Zone. Natural hazards would be escaped zoo animals and newly re-evolved megafauna.

. . . and primitive humans. Gotta have those! :)

CC

Lizard-bipeds might be more likely :-)

I know we have a fondness for mammals, but reptiles are actually a more successful group evolutionary wise…

Chthonic regards

B

"Lizard-bipeds might be more likely :-)"

B,

Like these that I'm working on?

link

CC

Closer shot:

link

CC

Cool :-)

Do you want any zoological/anatomical comments?

Lizards, bats and birds (psittacines) would be the better bet for human "intelligent" replacements than more primates, Planet of the Apes not withstanding…

"Do you want any zoological/anatomical comments?"

Absolutely!

Could you share them here:

TMP link

CC

The trick with reptile-based bipeds I think, is not to borrow too many elements from human anatomy.

The hips of modern reptiles for instance, favour a sprawling gait and a reptilian-biped isn't likely to have slim 'primate hips'. Also, there isn't a lot of muscle tissue around the abdomen- a lot of a crocodile's stomach spreads over the ground when it rests. It does have excellent armoured plates (osteoderms) on the other hand.

There are a number of possibilities on how a reptile would become more erect and bipedal. One might be that the back arches (and become more rigid) rather than being flexible and erect. Turtles- another reptile group- achieved some of this rigidity by fusing their ribs together to form the carapace.

A long neck might achieve height in a way our own primate evolution could not- consider some of the taller birds…

The hip-design nontheless, provides the biggest challenge for a reptile intending to standa erect. Some crocodilians can gallop 'erect' on their back legs for short distances however- looks a bit comical. This emphasises however, that compared to primates, reptiles begin with a proportionally longer trunk and proportionally shorter limbs.

Chthonic ruminations

B

Primitive humans are what I was calling "Feral Sapiens".

I don't think avian or reptilian intelligence is likely in any reasonable timeframe considering how long they've had to develop it so far. Maybe avian since a number of birds seem to be competent with symbolic logic and tool use.

Yeah, now I've got it – a hive-mind of parrots, patterned after Vinge's "Fire Upon the Deep" dogs, squawking away in concert and acting as a flock. Might be hard to represent effectively in a game though.

lugal hdan,

If/when I finish these, they might be a more evolved party of Apes:

link
link

If so, to even the playing field a bit, the humans better learn how to steal and use some of the Ape weapons.

CC

Here is one with hair added:

link

CC

Fwiw, a lot of parrots have the intelligence of about a 4 year old child. The smartest parrot is the NZ kea-
link

Chthonic regards- B

If Apes overseas are making interesting strides (see link), would escaped primates, from labs and/or zoos, take advantage of the human vacuum or would they go about as always?

TMP link

CC

BBC artilce on keas

"Just set the camera over there with the test, and I'll be back in five minutes." It was to prove to be an eventful five minutes.

Who's a clever kea, then?
We were filming keas in the snowy mountains of New Zealand's South Island, and we'd built an intelligence test to discover just how clever these alpine parrots really are. But this depended on a lot of assumptions: that we would find wild birds, that we could get near to them, that they'd approach the puzzle and that they really were intelligent enough to work out how to get their food reward – by pulling a string, standing on the string to stop the food falling back again and repeating this action several times, with a camera pointing at them close by.

I returned to find cameraman Paul Donovan relaxing in the carpark. He was at his most laconic. "We allowed four days for this shoot, didn't we?" he asked. "Thereabouts." "Well," said Paul, "they've done it in under three minutes. I filmed it. And you missed it. Coffee?"

Testing times
I was amazed. I'd done many similar tests over the years with different bird species – , pigeons, crows, even woodpeckers. But in each case, the birds took days, weeks or months to solve the tests. It was obvious our intelligence tests were way too simple for these keas. So kea experts got together to design the most fiendishly difficult test that humans can devise for bird. We've filmed rooks discovering an ingenious way of breaking open walnuts, ravens solving four-stage intelligence tests, pigeons distinguishing between different colours to get a food reward.

Likeable rogues
And then there are the keas – the only true alpine parrots in the world, confined to the high country of New Zealand's South Island. Their dark, olive-green plumage, heavy bodies and long bills tucked back into their stubby necks might make them look drab. But as one takes off and lifts its wings, you see a glorious splash of extravagant orangey red on the underside of the wings. Any New Zealander will tell you the kea is bold and cheeky – a likeable rogue.

In their harsh mountain environment, food is hard to get. They must be ready to take advantage of any food that's available. Be unselective in their diet, or die. Be ingenious in finding new food sources, or die. Be flexible in their behaviour, or die.

As far as the original link goes, it an interesting article. I take issue with the assertion that all these plant and animals that humans have adapted through selective breeding would immediately disapear or 'devolve' within a hundred years or so. Horses seem pretty stable, and given sufficient food, are clearly superior to their smaller, pre-bred ancestors. What's more there are plenty of instances of wild horse populations surviving with no apparent problems. It may be un-pc, or even blasphemous to say it, but man has done an amazing job guiding the evolution of certain species…