Who would die with us?

[Andehtron]

I saw a documentary on this subject a couple of years ago, concerning what (if any) of our civilisation would be left if we just disappeared. It seems nature would have claimed most of our cities, technology etc within a thousand years to leave almost no trace. The Hoover dam is likely to last 10'000 years before collapse.

Just googled, it was called "Life after People" on C4 in the UK. They don't have it for streaming, but Im sure it could be dug up somewhere.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/life-after-people

[Iroscato]

Yeah, I saw that a few years ago. Good programme, and it made you think a lot.
It was kind of the inspiration for this thread.

[hongi]

Said animal would basically need a good baseline intelligence AND limbs that are capable of delicate manipulation.

Why are hands necessary for sapiency?

[Iroscato]

Said animal would basically need a good baseline intelligence AND limbs that are capable of delicate manipulation.

Why are hands necessary for sapiency?

Hands like ours open a whole new world of possibilities. They allow us to craft tools from rocks, point at objects, gesticulate when we were 'talking' about a certain thing. In fact, many scientists believe it was our hands that first allowed us to form language, as we started to associate certain gestures with certain objects, or animals.
They also allow other things like punching, a far more effective weapon than simple slapping of paws, and they allowed us to form the first sparks of man-made fire. They really are incredible

[Spoonist]

Said animal would basically need a good baseline intelligence AND limbs that are capable of delicate manipulation.

Why are hands necessary for sapiency?

They are not. It's the old victorian 'how are humans different than animals'. Just like opposable thumbs.
It's similar to only humans are self aware, animals don't have cognition etc. Its all bunk as later research has shown.

It goes all the way back to animals have no souls.

[Iroscato]

Said animal would basically need a good baseline intelligence AND limbs that are capable of delicate manipulation.

Why are hands necessary for sapiency?

They are not. It's the old victorian 'how are humans different than animals'. Just like opposable thumbs.
It's similar to only humans are self aware, animals don't have cognition etc. Its all bunk as later research has shown.

It goes all the way back to animals have no souls.

You can't deny they give us a massive advantage though, right?
I reckon it was having opposable thumbed hands that gave us the kick we needed.

[General Zod]

You can't deny they give us a massive advantage though, right?
I reckon it was having opposable thumbed hands that gave us the kick we needed.

Having opposable thumbs isn't exactly a unique trait. Plenty of animals have them.

[Spoonist]

You can't deny they give us a massive advantage though, right?
I reckon it was having opposable thumbed hands that gave us the kick we needed.

If so all primates would have such an advatage. Especially given their greater strength and better dexterity. Doesn't work that way though.

[Iroscato]

You can't deny they give us a massive advantage though, right?
I reckon it was having opposable thumbed hands that gave us the kick we needed.

If so all primates would have such an advatage. Especially given their greater strength and better dexterity. Doesn't work that way though.

You do understand evolution right? Yes, primates had that same advantage, but we were the ones who became dominant. I suppose standing upright helped us as well, so that and opposable thumbs were the advantages we had.

[Spoonist]

You do understand evolution right?

Irony.

[Iroscato]

You do understand evolution right?

Irony.

Wha...I barely remember posting this...a lot going on at the moment, sorry if I was being a dick. I've been on autopilot all day

[Spoonist]

Wha...I barely remember posting this...a lot going on at the moment, sorry if I was being a dick. I've been on autopilot all day

No problem. Some days I'm like that myself on stressful days. Big of you to acknowledge it though.

[Iroscato]

Wha...I barely remember posting this...a lot going on at the moment, sorry if I was being a dick. I've been on autopilot all day

No problem. Some days I'm like that myself on stressful days. Big of you to acknowledge it though.

I ain't no stubborn troll

[Cykeisme]

Evolving sapience isn't a natural progression for life, nor is it really "progress" when you look at it from the impartial view of the universe.

Unless there's some sort of selective pressure that favours the survival of the intelligent (as opposed to being faster, stronger, tougher, seeing/hearing better, which are the survival solution to many more common challenges), there's no reason why one or more sapient species would emerge after man is gone.


Then again, in this post-man scenario, perhaps all of man's leftover artifacts lying all over the place, even in a state of breakdown and disuse, might itself offer an advantage to any species able to take advantage of some of our stuff.
Perhaps even a big enough advantage that using our leftover crap might significantly increase the odds of survival of the members of their population who can manipulate our junk.

[Spoonist]

Perhaps even a big enough advantage that using our leftover crap might significantly increase the odds of survival of the members of their population who can manipulate our junk.

Which is (speculated) already happening today. Racoons in near human habitats reproduce faster and produce fatter offspring than racoons in the wild. Some of those have adapted to using levers and hooks to get in to reach foodstuff. Just like crow-species have adapted new hunting/gathering methods using human environment/tools.

So there is definately a pressure on some populations to adapt to human stuff/crap/etc. With effects seen (speculated) on their cognitive abilities. This should be a stronger and stronger pressure as humans dominate more of the planets habitats.
Don't think that will necessary lead to sapience but definately to skills we have not observed before.

If we look at our longest 'uplift' pets we can see (speculate) that most dog breeds have skills that far surpass that of wolves due to adaptation.

[Elheru Aran]

How specialized to human use are those skills, though? I would argue that given the disappearance of humans, the great majority of dogs will die off (see: pretty much every purse-dog breed) given their lack of skills pertaining to survival *without* human aid. Even feral dogs generally scavenge human-made trash to live, and once that runs out, there ain't going to be much they can do except learn how to live wild.

Cats at least have somewhat more of an edge, as they do retain some hunting skills even as domesticated as they are, albeit they exhibit that mostly in play. It's not a huge stretch to apply that to surviving in the wild, and given that there will be a short term boom in rats and such, I don't see it as unreasonable to expect cats to do better than dogs initially in this setting.

[Spoonist]

Depends on the setting. In warmer areas dogs that run away or breed with wild ones have turned to feral hounds shortly and in some cases formed really large (40-50) packs sustained from the wild. Now it wouldn't be as easy without humans but still. So I'd theorize that dogs would do better in warmer climates while cats would do better in more temperate climates.
Take New Zeeland for instance, a warm climate and huge number of sheep, deer and wombats. Without humans dogs would probably increase in numbers rather than the reverse.

But I don't think that dogs are good candidates for sapience.

[Akhlut]

Dogs are probably going to start interbreeding with wolves and, in sub-tropical and tropical areas, wolves are probably then going to acquire some useful dog traits, such as year-round breeding cycles, whereas those in temperate and cold conditions are going to retain wolf seasonal breeding cycles.

In areas without existing wolf populations (or that would not get wolf populations due to isolation, such as polynesian islands, New Zealand, or Australia), I'd expect to see progression to a dingo-like existence.

Cats I'd expect to do fairly well on their own, though in North America they might get outcompeted by bobcats and lynxes.

I don't know how much human detritus will be anything other then a short-term determinant for organism survival. 90% of buildings will collapse within 2 or 3 centuries; every bridge will have collapsed by then; nearly all plastic junk is going to break down into non-recognizable forms; most metals are going to rust and oxidize into dust; and so on. within 500 years, most signs of humanity are going to be buried and destroyed and useless to most organisms. So, while they might result in short-term survival and population booms, it will be smoothed away in 5-10 centuries. Only whacky things like giant stone constructions are going to be around (so, the Pyramids, Mt. Rushmore, and some large Buddha statues in the mountains) for any length of time.

I'd be curious to figure out what human agriculture does, though. Most yearly plants are doomed because what makes them so attractive to us makes them ripe to be eaten by all other animals too. So, corn is probably going extinct, as are soybeans, wheat, and other cereal crops. Most vegetables are more likely to survive, since their seeds will spread pretty far. I do wonder how orchards would fair, though. While their fruits would spread far, I wonder if they could manage with browsers going over them every year like crazy.

Anyway, I'd also expect some unusual stuff to occur with invasives and zoo animals, as I sort of detailed further up the thread.

I'd also wonder how that would affect another animal that eventually evolved human intelligence if it occurs within 6-10 million years or so. Could they figure out evolution if it looks like nearly every animal is found on every continent? What sort of conclusions can they reach if they find tigers on every continent, even those that had been separate for millions of years? It'd be intriguing, for sure.

[Iroscato]

Mmm, I think our space junk will long outlast our buildings and cities. They'd last thousands, even millions of years, and probably cause great confusion and excitement for any future space faring civilisations.

Then there's depleted resources to think about. We've used up a huge amount of the Earth's easily accessable fossil fuels and building materials meaning any other sapient race is not gonna have the best start.

Ironic really, even after we've gone, we'll still be fucking the world up

[Raxmei]

Corn as we know it goes extinct fast. It can't reproduce without human intervention. Cereal crops in general don't disperse their seeds properly and that puts them at serious disadvantage compared to grasses that do.

[Akhlut]

Mmm, I think our space junk will long outlast our buildings and cities. They'd last thousands, even millions of years, and probably cause great confusion and excitement for any future space faring civilisations.

Aside from stuff on the moon (and possibly Mars), I'd expect any of our space junk to fall back to earth or be so lost in the depths of space as to be unreachable. The Voyager crafts, for instance, are going to be out in interstellar space by the time anything else gets up its own space program, and, hence, they're going to be essentially lost.

Then there's depleted resources to think about. We've used up a huge amount of the Earth's easily accessable fossil fuels and building materials meaning any other sapient race is not gonna have the best start.

Fossil fuels might be gone, but there's more then adequate amounts of rock and wood for building, and there's still plenty of coal and fissile material to go around. Plus, ethanol can be mass-produced wherever. They might be in a worse initial situation then us, but they'd have to deal with their own "peak oil" situation much earlier then us and would probably be able to get around it with fewer issues.

[Iroscato]

Mmm, I think our space junk will long outlast our buildings and cities. They'd last thousands, even millions of years, and probably cause great confusion and excitement for any future space faring civilisations.

Aside from stuff on the moon (and possibly Mars), I'd expect any of our space junk to fall back to earth or be so lost in the depths of space as to be unreachable. The Voyager crafts, for instance, are going to be out in interstellar space by the time anything else gets up its own space program, and, hence, they're going to be essentially lost.

According to BBC Focus, Voyager 1 will last in a recognisable form for almost 50 BILLION years. Whether that's true or not is ripe for discussion...

[Akhlut]

Aside from stuff on the moon (and possibly Mars), I'd expect any of our space junk to fall back to earth or be so lost in the depths of space as to be unreachable. The Voyager crafts, for instance, are going to be out in interstellar space by the time anything else gets up its own space program, and, hence, they're going to be essentially lost.

According to BBC Focus, Voyager 1 will last in a recognisable form for almost 50 BILLION years. Whether that's true or not is ripe for discussion...

I'm not disputing that the Voyager craft won't be intact, just that it would be like trying to find a specific loose diamond in all the landfills on earth. Voyager 1 is going to be hundreds of millions, if not billions, of miles away even if something evolves human-like intelligence and builds a space program in a scant 3 million years. Not to mention that, as far as objects in space go, Voyager is absolutely tiny and will eventually stop transmitting messages, even if the craft itself is okay. So, it'll be tiny, far away, and not sending anything significant at earth. Only the moon and maybe Mars will tell any civilizations after us anything about humans.

[Iroscato]

Oh, I wasn't being stand-offish, merely expressing my amazement that something that we built has the potential to last that long. Although the chances of it ending up in a neighbouring system are about as high as me becoming president of Jupiter.

[Akhlut]

Not a problem, sorry if I sounded hostile myself. Text is a terrible medium for conveying emotions.