General > Off Topic

The World Without Us - Alan Weisman

(1/3) > >>

EricL:
You've probably heard of it.  This book has gotton lots of press - on Oprah, on NPR.  It was #1 on a bunch of best seller lists for awhile.  As of this writing, its still #37 on Amazon.

Basically, it's a climate change book wrapped in a thought experiement.  What would happen to the world - to everything from buildings to species to ecosystems to nuclear power plants - if all humans simply vanished, quietly, instantly, without nuclear bombs or leaving behind dead bodies?

It's well written, well researched and quite informative in places.  It's quite interesting to learn how long concrete lasts, that it would be only hours or days before New York's subways flooded, that the copper Statue of Liberty will be intact long after all the modern buildings made of steel and concrete have corroded away.  

It's a good read, highly recommended.  Its also totally, completely, utterly, thouroughly depressing - not because all the humans are gone, but because in order to understand what the world might revert to without us, Weisman must first take us through what the world was like before us, or at least before we gained sufficiently in population to wreak environmental havoc and in so doing, he makes it incredibly clear what has already been lost to human activity, how few poeple realize what has been lost and how those losses will continue even if we vanished tomorrow due to the environmental changes we have already set in motion.  Depressing, so very very depressing.

It's depressing to learn how Clovis Man devastated the North American mega fauna.  It's depressing to learn how dire the situation is today with the majority of coral reefs dead or dying and that nothing can really be done to stop it.  Its depressing to learn how elephants evolved to migrate and cover great distances and how those few left today in the wild are confined behind fences in areas a fraction the size of their former territory.  

There are bright spots.  Wildlife has returned with a vengence to the area around Chernobel now that (most) humans have vacated the area, even though mutations are rampant.  Generation times have dropped, selection is in operation.   Ecosystems can recover - in a hurry it seems if the necessary organisms arn't already extinct - but only if human activity stops or is greatly diminshed.  One finds oneself wishing at the end of the book that humans could indeed be magically vaporized somehow.

The book concludes with a look at what things could possibly wipe us out while leaving the rest of the world in tact.  Experts conclude there is nothing that could do it today short of aliens spiriting us away, not even a homo-specific pandemic - nothing viralent enough exists - too many would survive, it would not spread sufficiently, etc..  (Nulcear war and asteroids aren't considerred as they would take out other things besides us.)   AIDS isn't even a blip on world population growth, which has a current run rate of 1 million people every 4 days.  That's net increase - 250k more people are born than die every day.  Surprisingly, nano tech gone amuck in the future appears to be the most possible means for a nice clinical human demise experts conclude.

There is a brief attempt by the author to put a shiny face on his conclusions, to look for possible answers to our head-long rush towards further overpopulation and the conversion of the Earth into a radioactive parking lot.  But it's half hearted.  That there is really nothing good to say is evident in how few paragraphs the author devotes to this.   It is difficult to postulate a good outcome from the case the author presents. Unlike Gore's 'Incoveinant Truth', there are no calls to recycle, buy hybrids or stop using plastics.   The author appears to have already concluded that such measures are fruitless luxeries only developed nations can even consider and unlikely to make any real difference in any event.  About the only possible thing that could reverse the trends he concludes would be a world-wide ban, strongly enforced, on women having more than a single child.  Unlikely to happen to put it mildly.

One is left with a feeling of despair, that the world is on track to be bleaker and less diverse, generation after generation, for many generations to come and that we stupid humans, mired in our pathetic little self-centered worlds have no clue (or don't care) what has already been lost and have no hope to act collectivly to stop the inevitable decline, even if it could be stopped.

Highly recommended, but be prepared to be depressed.

Numsgil:
Well sure it's depressing if you look at it that way.  I prefer to think of it as Man's triumph at the game of chicken.  Most of nature spends a lot of energy looking like they're dangerous, whereas man does something about it.  I mean, how many other animals even come close to the destruction even a small group of humans can do?  Those other animals know not to mess with us.  See what we did to those dinosaurs?  You're next Mr. Sabertooth Tiger!  

On a more serious note, I heard about the book and it made me think about possible previous civilizations.  So little of what man does will survive even a single million years, it makes you wonder if intelligence could be a recurring event on Earth.  There really wouldn't be any fossil evidence left if some veloceraptor species gained intelligence and formed civilizations.

Peter:
Nope, haven't heard of it, am I missing something

Sure, the human's have counquered the planet *proud*  . And jeah the diversity is going down, so what.


--- Quote ---Unlike Gore's 'Incoveinant Truth', there are no calls to recycle,buy hybrids or stop using plastics. The author appears to have already concluded that such measures are fruitless luxeries only developed nations can even consider and unlikely to make any real difference in any event.
--- End quote ---

If hybrids are efficient, it could make a difference in the future when petrol-prices are higher.(think of it I live in the Netherlands the petrol prices are alot higher then in amerika alot higher).

Stop using plastics, look around you, you can look anywhere without looking at a plastic. Plastic is everywhere. What to use then instead of plastic. Ofcource some plastic uses are not necesarily.

But Gore, global warming. Sure global warming  , anybody looked at the sun. Most climate chances are coming from it. I don't even really believe climate is chancing, but in the couple jears there was even an increase of temperature at mars and venus. Should it be the sun or maybe it is global warming, let's see.


--- Quote ---One is left with a feeling of despair, that the world is on track to be bleaker and less diverse, generation after generation, for many generations to come and that we stupid humans, mired in our pathetic little self-centered worlds have no clue (or don't care) what has already been lost and have no hope to act collectivly to stop the inevitable decline, even if it could be stopped.
--- End quote ---

What (important) has been lost?

And If you can't do anything about it why care?

Are you doing anything for it,then if you care?


It could be becouse I am part of the dominant specie  , I don't care. Why should the specie care.


--- Quote ---On a more serious note, I heard about the book and it made me think about possible previous civilizations. So little of what man does will survive even a single million years, it makes you wonder if intelligence could be a recurring event on Earth. There really wouldn't be any fossil evidence left if some veloceraptor species gained intelligence and formed civilizations.
--- End quote ---

Hmm, I don't really think there are previous species that form civilizations, there should be something left, like a skeleton with more brain-capacity. Or buildings that are left(milion jears I am not sure),something.
Still, can you really conclude there wasn't any intelient life. That's pretty hard, I don't really see mankind going down, a huge meteorite would be the most destructive, but a huge meteorite could now be seen from earth, and then we can defend. Rocket or so.

I see a civilisation of our level not that fast going down, but a civilisation or a lesser level and probably smaller.
Maybe we will see evidence someday there was inteligent life before us, but that feels kinda strange.

Numsgil:

--- Quote from: Peter ---Hmm, I don't really think there are previous species that form civilizations, there should be something left, like a skeleton with more brain-capacity.
--- End quote ---

How many individuals do you think we have for some fossil species?  Some species are represented by just a few individuals, or just a few partial skeletons.  And most of those species were around for many millions of years.  Modern humans?  A scant few thousand.  Our archealogical strata layer would barely be a blip.  And I don't think many human burials are amenable to fossilization.  I imagine we'd be lucky to have even a single skeleton found by future archealogists.

And brain cavity size isn't necessarily a direct representation of intelligence.  You could take the collective intelligence of ants, for instance.  And many animals have comparitve brain size vs. body weight as humans, with similar sizes, yet aren't intelligent.


--- Quote ---Or buildings that are left(milion jears I am not sure),something.
--- End quote ---

Which buildings would those be?  The ones made out of wood?  Steel?  Concrete?  The more modern structures require constant maintenance to keep from falling apart.  Steel corrodes, and concrete crumbles. Buildings aren't going to survive even a few hundred thousands years.  Not unless a civilization is building their cities out of brass or copper.

You probably could construct a window of time with respect to technology level to say that such civilizations don't exist.  A society with only wood buildings and tools probably wouldn't leave a trace as soon as a few thousand years.  Metallurgy increases that window to probably a few million years for some artifacts.  Interestingly, it's man's more primitive technology that will probably last the longest, so a future archealogist might have a hard time determining if Man ever got out of the stone or early metal ages.


--- Quote ---Still, can you really conclude there wasn't any intelient life. That's pretty hard, I don't really see mankind going down, a huge meteorite would be the most destructive, but a huge meteorite could now be seen from earth, and then we can defend. Rocket or so.
--- End quote ---

As Eric pointed out, Humanity is pretty entrenched.  There's no way to whack us all out cleanly at once, at least not with modern technology.  As far as a meteor, no.  There's no technology set up to deflect meteors or asteroids.  We might be able to cobble together something if we had sufficient warning, but most orbit tracking is (forgive the pun) hit or miss.  There's still a bit of fuzziness as to the exact path an intrasollar body will take.  To add insult to injury, not only don't we even know all the bodies that exist in the solar plane, no one's looking for bodies around the poles.  And asteroid or meteor comming at us from above the solar plane would probably remain undetected until way, way too late.

Seriously, humanity is a sitting duck for meteor impacts.  Don't kid yourself.


--- Quote ---I see a civilisation of our level not that fast going down, but a civilisation or a lesser level and probably smaller.  Maybe we will see evidence someday there was inteligent life before us, but that feels kinda strange.
--- End quote ---

On the contrary, I think the more advanced the civilization level, the more susceptible it is to disaster.  Setting aside the fact that as technology increases, a whole slew of new disasters become available (you've unlocked "nuclear armaggedon"!), modern man relies so heavily on public utilities that I'm not sure many could survive without them.  How many of us could make fire without matches or lighters?  Or hunt animals?  Set traps?  Being an electrical engineer is worthless if there's no electricity.  Technology distances us from the needs of survival, so much so that I think the vast majority of people would die without electricity, supermarkets, and matches.  And once the mass of humanity is dead, much of the technology is lost or impractical and fragmented.  I'm a computer programmer.  Does me no good if there's no computers.

Compare that with something like a medieval society.  Or even further, to something like a tribal society.  The closer you are to base survival (finding food primarily), the more likely you are to survive some hiccup that disrupts society as a whole.

Peter:
About the meteorites, I am not sure I thought the most big meteorites are being seen, I don't mean the ones that could impact and destroy something big, but the ones that inpact and for the coming  jears there is no sunlight coming too the earth becouse of the dust there is coming from, and that's really huge. But I don't have numbers of dangerous asteroids that are being seen(or not), so I can't really tell something from it. Always there is a possibility we can't see it coming, but how big is it really.

No, trace of us after milions of jears, I find this hard to believe. Will big stone castles decay and not even be traced. Won't there be anything left to find, Conclusion: the T-rex has been earlier on the moon then us. I still find it hard to believe.


--- Quote ---And brain cavity size isn't necessarily a direct representation of intelligence. You could take the collective intelligence of ants, for instance. And many animals have comparitve brain size vs. body weight as humans, with similar sizes, yet aren't intelligent.
--- End quote ---
Are there examples, brain size vs. body weight as humans, with similar sizes.


--- Quote from: Numsgil ---On the contrary, I think the more advanced the civilization level, the more susceptible it is to disaster.  Setting aside the fact that as technology increases, a whole slew of new disasters become available (you've unlocked "nuclear armaggedon"!), modern man relies so heavily on public utilities that I'm not sure many could survive without them.  How many of us could make fire without matches or lighters?  Or hunt animals?  Set traps?  Being an electrical engineer is worthless if there's no electricity.  Technology distances us from the needs of survival, so much so that I think the vast majority of people would die without electricity, supermarkets, and matches.  And once the mass of humanity is dead, much of the technology is lost or impractical and fragmented.  I'm a computer programmer.  Does me no good if there's no computers.

Compare that with something like a medieval society.  Or even further, to something like a tribal society.  The closer you are to base survival (finding food primarily), the more likely you are to survive some hiccup that disrupts society as a whole.
--- End quote ---

I the first, I was speaking about the civilisation going down as in becoming extinct(tech away, a civilisation stays and will bould again, in time). Ofcource when you are higher on the ladder, you can fall down harder, but you still keep standing. That technology increase is in fact a reason why countrys wouldn't start a "nuclear armaggedon" if you are as coutry far enought to create atomic bombs, you're a pretty rich country as it is more presticious then really destructive. For destruction you can use other bombs that are cheaper and even working better. The idiot that throw's a atomic bomb at a country it want's to conquer has jet to be born.
Modern man relies on public utilities, that's for sure. The specie Human would survive if they would have to live without it, I am not sure what kind of disaster will let this happen on world-scale. So can I even imagine well enough. What kind of disaster are you speaking of.
And you are exagerating, the mass of humanity, africa, asia ,south and middle america, middle east even a part of eastern europe. There are living people without electricity, where there is electricity(for the rich). They can't fall that much on technology.

And a computer-programmer, yes you're screwed  . Atleast I life on a farm, fallout of electricity could be a big problem, milking cows by hand is costing some time, and planting wheat could become a problem too. But in terms, I don't have a problem, like not being able to get food.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page