Earth plus 35000 years.

[Ursus the Grim]

Attention all natural scientists and anyone else with a brain between their ears.

So, laying the groundwork for an "After the End" D&D setting, I've tried to envisage a future in which civilization as we know it crumbles not too far from now. The setting takes place 35000 years after this mysterious collapse.

Things that happen before the end.

Alien contact. These alien races are known After the End as the small, keen Quicklings and their lumbering but cunning Servitors.
Widespread nanomachine usage, laying the groundwork for what will eventually be called magic. Perhaps brought by the Quicklings.
Something accelerates the rest of the primates to 'sentience' (Int 8). After the End they are known as something better than Furmen. Help me out here.


Things that would probably happen within 35,000 years.

Subways (such as NYC's) would flood and collapse.
Nuclear melt downs.
Pipes in all temperate or cooler cities would burst.
Most crops would revert to wild, unpalatable strains.
Steel corrodes.
Bridges fall, river delta cities washed away, dams crumble.
Most suburbs completely reclaimed by nature, some steel and such remain as relics.
Domesticated animals die out or become feral.
Mediterranean shrinks.


I'm looking for thoughts and suggestions for things that I've missed. 35,000 years isn't enough for plate tectonics to really mix things up, but I'd imagine much of the world would be scrubbed back to nature. The problem is that I can't imagine what, say, my hometown would look like in 35000 years of abandonment.

[Mando Knight]

After 35000 years, you'd have practically nothing but ruins. Think Egypt, but even the Pyramids have only been around for less than 6000 years. Only the ruins that get preserved (buried, preserved by locals, etc.) will likely remain.

Also, most nuclear reactors are designed to fail safely if neglected, but even if they did melt down, the radiation they'd have put out would have dispersed millennia ago.

Also, depending on what happens, plate tectonics could actually invoke quite a shift in just 35000 years. Even the relatively stable Mid-Atlantic Ridge could change by more than 350 meters at its current estimated rate. The more active plates, like those surrounding the Pacific, could even move several kilometers in that time. The continents would still be fairly recognizable barring catastrophic tectonic shifts, but new mountain ranges, rivers, lakes, and so forth wouldn't be out of the question.

[arguskos]

Yeah, 35,000 years is so long that all civilization EVER has happened in less time than that (last estimate I saw was that 10,000 years ago we were closer to apes than modern men; fully a THIRD of your timeline). Nothing we have ever built would exist in any form at all, period.

[Weezer]

There would be essentially no remnant of our society left, and definitely nothing easily found. Perhaps if you dug down enough where New York is today you might find some artifacts, but on the surface? Nothing at all. All buildings would be long gone, roads would've dissolved etc, etc. If you want there to still be 'mysterious remnants of a past long forgotten' (TM), make it more like 3 or 4 thousand years. That's long enough for everything to stop working, but some of the sturdier buildings/monuments would still be around in a ruined state.

[Ursus the Grim]

After 35000 years, you'd have practically nothing but ruins. Think Egypt, but even the Pyramids have only been around for less than 6000 years. Only the ruins that get preserved (buried, preserved by locals, etc.) will likely remain.


Yeah, 35,000 years is so long that all civilization EVER has happened in less time than that (last estimate I saw was that 10,000 years ago we were closer to apes than modern men; fully a THIRD of your timeline). Nothing we have ever built would exist in any form at all, period.

That's actually exactly what I wanted to hear. Is there some universal agent that we think will cause it or just natural weathering forces?


Also, most nuclear reactors are designed to fail safely if neglected, but even if they did melt down, the radiation they'd have put out would have dispersed millennia ago.

Yeah, I didn't plan on the meltdowns having an impact anyway, it was just something to consider.


Also, depending on what happens, plate tectonics could actually invoke quite a shift in just 35000 years. Even the relatively stable Mid-Atlantic Ridge could change by more than 350 meters at its current estimated rate. The more active plates, like those surrounding the Pacific, could even move several kilometers in that time. The continents would still be fairly recognizable barring catastrophic tectonic shifts, but new mountain ranges, rivers, lakes, and so forth wouldn't be out of the question.

Interesting. I admit, as an Environmental Scientist, my Geology knowledge is nowhere near where it should be when it comes to long-scale and plate-tectonic theory. The only projections I could find were on the scale of millions of years. This is rather useful information.

[DeadManSleeping]

There would be essentially no remnant of our society left, and definitely nothing easily found. Perhaps if you dug down enough where New York is today you might find some artifacts, but on the surface? Nothing at all. All buildings would be long gone, roads would've dissolved etc, etc. If you want there to still be 'mysterious remnants of a past long forgotten' (TM), make it more like 3 or 4 thousand years. That's long enough for everything to stop working, but some of the sturdier buildings/monuments would still be around in a ruined state.

I second this. 3500 years would be great for a ruined civilization. 35000 years would see animal and plant life change, to say nothing of environment. Vast swathes of terrain would be totally changed. The sea level might even be different. There would basically be no point in acknowledging that the planet was Earth.

[Ursus the Grim]

There would be essentially no remnant of our society left, and definitely nothing easily found. Perhaps if you dug down enough where New York is today you might find some artifacts, but on the surface? Nothing at all. All buildings would be long gone, roads would've dissolved etc, etc. If you want there to still be 'mysterious remnants of a past long forgotten' (TM), make it more like 3 or 4 thousand years. That's long enough for everything to stop working, but some of the sturdier buildings/monuments would still be around in a ruined state.


I second this. 3500 years would be great for a ruined civilization. 35000 years would see animal and plant life change, to say nothing of environment. Vast swathes of terrain would be totally changed. The sea level might even be different. There would basically be no point in acknowledging that the planet was Earth.

See, I don't actually want the explorations of a "ruined Earth". I want Earth to be the springboard. I want to have a full world prepared so that when someone asks me something I wasn't prepared for, I have something to work with, instead of some B.S. that I need to remember and stay consistent with.

I want to set up this world for my players and have them go "hey, that looks a lot like Earth" and know that they're in South America, but a South America that they don't know, a world that hasn't been for thousands of years but could be. Perhaps there is an ancient legend, perhaps some fragment of a transitory civilization remain. Perhaps some fragment of the Quickling's extraterrestrial origins fall from the sky and get the world to question the world.

I want the big twist of telling a twentieth level crafter that the magic silver spiders that crawl in the blood of Quicklings, Pure, and Rampants actually has littler things inside of it.

This may be a stupid setting idea, but I'm trying to get together the picture of the map and the topology, not a decent story yet.

[The Anarresti]

Read The World Without Us by Alan Weisman. It basically gives a timeline of what would happen if we all just vanished instantly, tomorrow.
By the way, pretty much all civilization has only been around for 10,000 years, but human beings as they are today have been around for over 100,000 years. That's 90% of human history that we cannot even fathom...
For a good approximation of the changes in society over long periods of time, read Dune by Frank Herbert (a phenomenal book to read anyway,) and compare the humans there to modern-day culture. I'd say a similar shift would occur over 35,000 years.

[Ursus the Grim]

Read The World Without Us by Alan Weisman. It basically gives a timeline of what would happen if we all just vanished instantly, tomorrow.

I've heard of it. I may look it up, though I can't afford to pick it up just yet.



For a good approximation of the changes in society over long periods of time, read Dune by Frank Herbert (a phenomenal book to read anyway,) and compare the humans there to modern-day culture. I'd say a similar shift would occur over 35,000 years.

I've read that, some time ago, but what's there is basically a space-society gone rural, isn't it? It still has some high-tech stuff, and with the decent environment of Earth, I can't see a Fremen society developing except on the edges of certain deserts.

[Mando Knight]

That's actually exactly what I wanted to hear. Is there some universal agent that we think will cause it or just natural weathering forces?
Mostly natural conditions. Only the most solidly built structures could last for thousands of years without maintenance... everything else would collapse from fatigue and wear due to environmental conditions.

Interesting. I admit, as an Environmental Scientist, my Geology knowledge is nowhere near where it should be when it comes to long-scale and plate-tectonic theory. The only projections I could find were on the scale of millions of years. This is rather useful information.
I just made rough calculations using the estimated shift per annum rates listed on Wikipedia, multiplying it by 35000 years. I don't expect the numbers to be that accurate since I was using a terrible approximation, but since we don't have 35000 years of concrete tectonic data (even if we back out that data from geological records they'd nowhere near as accurate as taking the measurements directly) and I was mostly trying to get across the rough scale of the changes after such a long time, it serves its purpose.

[DeadManSleeping]

Advice: unless you exhaustively research this, you're going to be B.S.ing anyway.

As far as "it's really sci-fi" goes, I recommend researching things that Have done it (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AncientAstronauts) already (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagicFromTechnology).

[thorgrim29]

I don't know much about that stuff, but it seems to me that mined out veins of different metals would stay mined out and in relatively the same place, so while it's nothing an ordinary character would realize they could encounter a mining engineer or something who points it out. Also I imagine at least some tunnels would remain if the mine is in the middle of a plate, like the mines at the north of Canada are.

[Mando Knight]

Advice: unless you exhaustively research this, you're going to be B.S.ing anyway.

As far as "it's really sci-fi" goes, I recommend researching things that Have done it (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AncientAstronauts) already (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagicFromTechnology).

In other words, watch the History Channel. (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/ancient-aliens)

[Reluctance]

What I'm trying to get is how you'd have sentient races in the interim, and you'd have advanced ruins, but the former wouldn't attempt to reoccupy and learn from the latter. Unless the planet was sentient-free for a long time.

[Jallorn]

This (http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/aftermath/environment/index.html) is a good resource, though it only gives you the first 230 years.

[Lord Seth]

Yeah, 35,000 years is so long that all civilization EVER has happened in less time than that (last estimate I saw was that 10,000 years ago we were closer to apes than modern men; fully a THIRD of your timeline). Nothing we have ever built would exist in any form at all, period.On what do you base this claim? I can't really see your logic. Yes, 35,000 is longer than civilization...but for that argument to work, you'd have to conclusively prove that there is a certain "cut off" date, which, based on your own admission that civilization hasn't lasted that long, seems impossible. If you could perhaps say that nothing remains from, say, 5000 years ago, that would be a start, but you haven't asserted that. "Nothing we have ever built would exist in any form at all, period" does not follow logically from "civilization has not existed that long."

Incidentally, the fact that cave paintings that were made around 35,000 years ago still remain seems to singlehandedly disprove your claim by invalidating the apparently proposed "cut off" date.

[arguskos]

On what do you base this claim? I can't really see your logic. Yes, 35,000 is longer than civilization...but for that argument to work, you'd have to conclusively prove that there is a certain "cut off" date, which, based on your own admission that civilization hasn't lasted that long, seems impossible. If you could perhaps say that nothing remains from, say, 5000 years ago, that would be a start, but you haven't asserted that. "Nothing we have ever built would exist in any form at all, period" does not follow logically from "civilization has not existed that long."

Incidentally, the fact that cave paintings that were made around 35,000 years ago still remain seems to singlehandedly disprove your claim by invalidating the apparently proposed "cut off" date.
Perhaps something small, like paint on a sheltered cave wall, might survive, making my statement false on purely technical grounds, but I stand by the sentiment espoused, that nothing would remain of us after so long. What do we know of those 35,000 year old cave paintings, other than that they were there? Can you point to something modern that you can legitimately claim would survive that long? I cannot not, and no one else here has done so either, leading me to think that perhaps it is because nothing will.

Also, your nitpick is perhaps the most technical nitpick I have ever responded to or even seen. :smalltongue: The claim may not be 100% true but the sentiment is clear (and I note you failed to rebuke it).

[Ursus the Grim]

Mostly natural conditions. Only the most solidly built structures could last for thousands of years without maintenance... everything else would collapse from fatigue and wear due to environmental conditions.

I just made rough calculations using the estimated shift per annum rates listed on Wikipedia, multiplying it by 35000 years. I don't expect the numbers to be that accurate since I was using a terrible approximation, but since we don't have 35000 years of concrete tectonic data (even if we back out that data from geological records they'd nowhere near as accurate as taking the measurements directly) and I was mostly trying to get across the rough scale of the changes after such a long time, it serves its purpose.

Well played, good sir.

Man, I remember when "I learned it on Wikipedia" was mostly a joke.


Advice: unless you exhaustively research this, you're going to be B.S.ing anyway.

As far as "it's really sci-fi" goes, I recommend researching things that Have done it (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AncientAstronauts) already (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagicFromTechnology).

Thing is, is that I want to limit those two tropes. I don't want this devolving into Stargate and Magitech. I just want to use those steps as a way to develop a new, medium magic fantasy Earth without having to explain that its not Earth.


I don't know much about that stuff, but it seems to me that mined out veins of different metals would stay mined out and in relatively the same place, so while it's nothing an ordinary character would realize they could encounter a mining engineer or something who points it out. Also I imagine at least some tunnels would remain if the mine is in the middle of a plate, like the mines at the north of Canada are.

I could imagine certain subterranean structures surviving, but there are a lot of things that could wreck them. Tectonic activity isn't the only threat to a mine over thousands of years. Mass wasting occurs far more often and far more dramatically. It would take just one landslide, one flood, a few corroded support beams and the entire system would be compromised.

Then again, I'm not an engineer, despite my grandfather's wishes.


In other words, watch the History Channel. (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/ancient-aliens)

Wish I had enough time to watch two seasons of a new show.


What I'm trying to get is how you'd have sentient races in the interim, and you'd have advanced ruins, but the former wouldn't attempt to reoccupy and learn from the latter. Unless the planet was sentient-free for a long time.

Good question. Right now I'm looking at "The End" as leaving a collective scar on the populace, something imposing almost a fear of urban centers (ala Sin from FFX, perhaps?). Something happened to wreck culture and society and drive these people from their homes.


This (http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/aftermath/environment/index.html) is a good resource, though it only gives you the first 230 years.

I like. It gives me a good visual representation of how fast certain structures will crumble.

[TheThan]

Clearly the world will be overtaken (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PWaJ6URRU0 ) by dinosaurs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9c2K4Jl5LI).

[Ravens_cry]

35,000 years isn't time for much evolution to occur, so I doubt another sentient species would arise in that time unless we were in the process of uplifting them in the time before we left. Our works would be gone, but some of our imprints would remain, like the scars of our mining and there could potentially be a treasure trove for any alien anthropologists in more protected areas given the time it takes for some things, like plastic, glass, and aluminum to decay.

[Zeta Kai]

After that much time has passed, the only sign that humanity was ever here will be junk left on the Moon, & a layer of plastic bits about 30 feet below the surface of the Earth near coasts & rivers. The Hoover Dam will be one of the last things left, & it's only designed to last 10,000 years. By 37kAD, it & every other major symbol of modern civilization will have collapsed into rust & dust long ago.

[Ravens_cry]

After that much time has passed, the only sign that humanity was ever here will be junk left on the Moon, & a layer of plastic bits about 30 feet below the surface of the Earth near coasts & rivers. The Hoover Dam will be one of the last things left, & it's only designed to last 10,000 years. By 37kAD, it & every other major symbol of modern civilization will have collapsed into rust & dust long ago.
Well ,we have, deep in caves and other protected areas, found remains that old and older, finding wooden spears over 10 times that (http://www.archaeology.org/9705/newsbriefs/spears.html).
Still, our most long lasting works will be our space debris.
Yes, that will be something. Those will potentially last millions of years in some recognizable form. Some satellites in suitably high orbits could have similar life spans. I wonder what the effect such craft would have on developing astronomy of a young species. The planets were discovered because they moved at odds with the other against the sky, wandering stars.
Imagine what that will be like for a species that develops space travel again, travelling to Phicca and finding that is not a moon but an ancient artefact of some alien race.
Or if they go to the moon and while mapping it for a future manned mission like the prosaically named Lunar Orbiter series, discovering the landers and rovers of our manned and unmanned missions.
Now that is a science fiction story that needs writing.
It probably has, but it couldn't hurt to tell it again.

[Lord Seth]

Perhaps something small, like paint on a sheltered cave wall, might survive, making my statement false on purely technical grounds, but I stand by the sentiment espoused, that nothing would remain of us after so long. What do we know of those 35,000 year old cave paintings, other than that they were there?This seems an odd assertion, because the whole point is that they were there. But a little more thought and a little more research shows a heck of a lot of things that have survived from even longer ago. For example, the Terra Amata shelter and its stone tools are dated to about 400,000 years ago (there have been some claims it's not that old...but even the later estimates put it in the around 200,000 years old). That clearly survived, as did other stone tools from that era, and tools from later than that but still before the 35,000-years-ago mark.


Can you point to something modern that you can legitimately claim would survive that long? I cannot not, and no one else here has done so either, leading me to think that perhaps it is because nothing will.The issue here is, again, we are working from a limited sample data, so to speak. The majority of human achievement has been within the last few thousand years, and as a result we cannot determine to what extent those things would not survive. For example, the pyramids have lasted for a few thousand years. Will that extend to them surviving for another 35,000 years? I'm far from an expert on the kind of erosion that would affect them and how long such a thing would be speculated to take (they have been a bit eroded already, but the question is to what extent the erosion would have increased in 35,000 years--this might be something we'd have to ask a geologist about), but if we try to judge it purely by how long things they have lasted, there hasn't been 35,000 years to figure it out yet.


Also, your nitpick is perhaps the most technical nitpick I have ever responded to or even seen. :smalltongue: The claim may not be 100% true but the sentiment is clear (and I note you failed to rebuke it).I can hardly rebuke a claim that you offered inadequate support to in the first place other than pointing out the inadequate support, which I did. Your conclusion ("nothing will survive") did not follow logically from your evidence ("civilization hasn't been around for 35,000 years"). In order to validly conclude that, ironically, civilization would have had to have been around that long, and then we could note what has survived from the beginning of that period. If, after all, civilization has been around for 40,000 years, and nothing remains before the first 20,000, then you could conclude that 20,000 is a valid cut off date. But as you do not have more valid evidence of such a thing, therefore if anything your assertion that civilization is not that old works to counteract your claim.

[Serpentine]

last estimate I saw was that 10,000 years ago we were closer to apes than modern men; fully a THIRD of your timelineThat's pretty far off. Humans have been in Australia for at least twice that - some estimates have it at more like four times that - and they were well and truly human by the time they got here.

Lets think about the most durable stuff modern humans have: concrete, plastic... Probably mostly those. Anything metal that wasn't preserved in exceptional circumstances would be rusted away. But, if you happened to have any archaeologists around, I think signs of stuff like metal could still be detectable as rust stains and the like. But that's probably far too small-scale for what you're thinking of.
By this time, anything left on the surface would've been highly eroded, incorporated into the landscape, and/or buried. If you knew what you were looking for, you might be able to detect a really big city, as I think a plain of collapsed skyscrapers would have a fairly significant impact on the shape of the landscape. Probably only really detectable on a geological scale, though - "the soil and stones here are weird" sorta thing.

In the time given, it might be possible that stuff that was buried may be pushed up to the surface again by various processes (the tumbling about of artifacts is something archaeologists need to keep in mind in dating stuff). This means that, potentially, you could have some quite well-preserved artifacts, particularly around places like rivers, earthquake sites, maybe sink-holes and other places the earth gets stirred up and shifted around.

One thing you might like to keep in mind is that the great jack-pot for archaeologists is always the garbage dump. They're stuffed full with incredibly important evidence for daily life, diet and similar, and their conditions are naturally excellent for the preservation of materials. We have evidence from rubbish pits tens of thousands of years old, with things like bones and shells. How much richer will our dumps be, with all our plastics and everything already getting buried and so on? Even stuff like paper has been found to hardly decompose in them at all (it's kinda a problem, actually...).


Evolution can act in a surprisingly short time-frame, but on this sort of scale for the most part it's going to be in the form of exaggerations - shrinking tails, bigger horns, colour shifts, that sort of thing.
More dramatic can be ecological shifts. Australia, for example, is now mostly covered in schlerophyll forests and other dryness- and fire-loving plants, and doesn't have many large land-mammals. About 35,000 years ago, it was much wetter, with more deciduous rather than schelrophyll plants, and megafauna all over the place. It appears the change happened over just a few thousand years due to a combination of tectonic shift, climate changes, and the arrival of aborigines with their hunting practices, burning off and the animals they brought with them. The burning, in particular, was a big part of it - the climate was getting drier and more prone to combustion, and the aboriginals did it deliberately, ultimately changing entire ecosystems.

So, yeah. Consider changes on an ecological scale. In particular, I'd personally be interested to see how plants and animals adapt to the nanobots you mentioned. The development of symbiotic relationships between them could be very interesting - and if you're worried about the time scale, it makes sense to me that the fact that active technology is involved would speed up the process quite a bit.

[factotum]

I recommend seeing if you can catch a re-run of the History Channel series "Life After People", which also goes into what would happen if the human race disappeared entirely...you'd be surprised just how quickly the trappings of civilisation disappear; there probably wouldn't be anything recognisable left of our cities after just a thousand years, for example.

[Yora]

10,000 years is about the time when humans started developing agriculture and advanced beyond the "cave man" state.

And 35,000 years is a lot of time for evolution to occur. With changes in environmental conditions, even 35 years can result in significant change. In 35,000 years, most animals would still be recognizable as a dog, a big cat, a whale, or a bird, but individual subspecies might be completely different from what we have today.
Every domesticated animal would change a lot, since they are all bred to be optimally adapted to living under human care and they are currently kept apart to prevent interbreeding. Feral animals would probably vanish in a few hundred years and replaced by something that does actually have to surive well in the wilds.
However, for crows, chimps, or dolphins to develop civilization, that would probably still be a much too short period. It would probably take more of a hundred or a thousand times that much.

[Serpentine]

I thought about pondering the domestic animal thing, but I figured 35,000 years would be long enough for any effect to be pretty much indistinguishable. Outside, perhaps, of animal locations.
You know what would be pretty cool? Pigs as a top predator. Wild boars are scary.

[Coidzor]

Good question. Right now I'm looking at "The End" as leaving a collective scar on the populace, something imposing almost a fear of urban centers (ala Sin from FFX, perhaps?). Something happened to wreck culture and society and drive these people from their homes.


And kept them, on a global scale, from keeping their domestic animals or from rediscovering animal husbandry, for over 35000 years? :smallconfused: That's just silly. Large portions of them might have died off or gone feral, sure, but that no one has them at all anymore?

[factotum]

10,000 years is about the time when humans started developing agriculture and advanced beyond the "cave man" state.

And 35,000 years is a lot of time for evolution to occur.

There has been no significant evolution in human physiology or brains since Homo Sapiens came on the scene, which is around 50,000 years ago now. We have advanced in knowledge and behaviour since then, but that's about it.

In terms of evolution, the critical factor is the number of generations, not the time period--so bacteria, which can have generations measured in hours, evolve extremely rapidly, while human beings (with the usual 20-30 years between generations) don't evolve as fast. Even given that, though, for most species 35,000 years is a drop in the ocean as far as evolutionary timescales are concerned.

[Serpentine]

Homo sapiens first appeared about 250,000 years ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#H._sapiens), and we are still evolving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Recent_and_current_human_evolution ).
Before you say "but that's not physiological!", first of all I think you're wrong, but what about light skin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_skin#Origins_of_light_skin)?

[Caesar]

Here's my take on things, and for the record, ive got 3 years in engineering/physics and another 5 in nanotech (heheh magic, we get blamed for everything), if that makes you feel any better. Just going to hit the broad basics here:

1.) Geological zones will have a profound impact on the survivability of any relics/artifacts/infrastructure etc.. You already touched on this with delta cities. Expand upon this:

a) Any city in a floodplain or below a dam will be entirely swept away. All dams WILL fail, no questions, tho remnants of the structures will certainly remain, both on site and downstream as massive chunks of erroded concrete with rebar in it. Any city on a river, even if not on a floodplain, can be expected to be wiped away as well, tho areas on high stone will have higher survivability (not getting into structure type yet).

b) Anything built within ten to twenty miles of the any major ocean coast will be lost to the sea (assuming you dont claim that the ocean drops and stays that way). Obviously land will also be created, but even more obviously, nothing from our time will be standing there.

c) Highly tectonicly active zones can be expected to be wiped out and flattened. Los Angelos? San Fran? Tokyo? Nothing will remain standing, regardless of materials used. Expect areas with vulcanism to suffer accordingly, ie the Pacific Northwest can be expected to suffer at least several massive (St. Helens or bigger) eruptions, covering the area with deep ash and pumice, and possibly one super explosion which would devastate several states.

d) Anything northerly enough to experience freezing in the winter and thawing in the summer, will suffer catastrophically. This is not enough to wipe everything out by itself, but it will have a major effect.

2) Materials used will weather differently, with the biggest differences involving sunlight vs freeze/thaw cycles. We build plenty of crap that will last well over 35,000 years tho, under the right conditions:

a) Plastics will proliferate, tho they wont be a-blowin-in-the-wind. Soft to medium plastics will be obliterated in this time frame by sunlight alone, harder plastics, especially anything buried (floodplains), will persist for much, much longer than your world lasts. The soil in post-urban areas would be thick with the crap.

b) Concrete of varying types will remain, but not in anything resembling pristene condition. Any large structure can be expected to suffer dramatically, especially if exposed to freeze/thaw cycles. Concrete does errode, but still it will remain as a type of "stone" that will dominate certain areas of your terrain. Harder concretes will outlive softer types, ie superhighways vs city sidewalks, the latter of which I would not give much hope of lasting even ten thousand years. Keep in mind, the mortar used to cement the great wall of china together has outlasted the actual bricks in many places. Asphalt, on the other hand, wont last 50 years, as it is entirely digestable by plant life and is nothing more than slow-dissolve fertilizer. So the vast majority of road systems would be long gone, even if you didnt have to worry about errosion and what not. Superhighways would remain as broken tracks, often buried or lost for much of their span, and totally wiped out by any running water.

c) Iron does corrode, but high quality steel resists, especially in a more protected environment. It is not entirely inconceivable for skeletal remains of superstructures to remain. Rebar itself will dissolve into rust except in places where it was well protected by hardened concrete. Steel-structured high rises could remain somewhat intact, in extremely limited areas, assuming the weather and the geology was very, very benign. At any rate, there would be a proliferance of highly refined metals, both in a preserved state, and in various stages of advanced oxidation, available to anybody willing to dig around enough for them. Noble metals like gold and platinum, for example, would be waiting for the taking.

3) Plantlife alone will proliferate and obliterate the most of anything built. Jungles and forests will quicly claim and conquer urban areas, sub-urban areas would be a squeak in the wind compared to the forces that would eventually bury a major metropolis in meters of newly generated topsoil. Any environment that has enough moisture to ensure good plant growth will suffer accordingly. Deserts, on the other hand, can be expected to better preserve their surface remnants.

As for specific things like nuclear power plants and more specifically, their dirty little secrets, you have to ask yourself how civilization collapsed. Was it sudden? Did we have fair warning? Did the engineers have time to close down the plants? If the fuel rods are removed entirely from the core and stored according to plans, then meltdowns would be a moot point. Excepting, of course, any temporary storage conditions, which are usually drawn up by idiots (fukushima). If reactors were left running, or even just switched off but remained on standby concerning fuels, then you have a potentially serious problem. As for the fuel itself, obviously anything used in a nuclear plant is going to be around still, but sources like the cesium for a dental x-ray device would have reacted out thousands of years before.

Even with a full on nuclear meltdown, even with a super-critical fission event, 35000 years is enough time that the fallout would have long since been buried in the mud, and life would have returned, more or less, to normal. There are plenty of fish in the sea off of Bikini Atol, after all. (you just might not want to eat them just yet.)

And one last little thing: anything in orbit will have long since seen its orbit decay, and come burning back to Earth. If we set up a lunar station, it would have succumbed to micro-meteor impacts tho obviously the bulk of the equipment would remain.

[Yora]

In terms of evolution, the critical factor is the number of generations, not the time period--so bacteria, which can have generations measured in hours, evolve extremely rapidly, while human beings (with the usual 20-30 years between generations) don't evolve as fast. Even given that, though, for most species 35,000 years is a drop in the ocean as far as evolutionary timescales are concerned.
Which depends entirely on the scale of evolution you are looking for. In England, white moths almost entirely disappeared and were replaced by black moths in less than 100 years, as industrial polution made the white camouflage useless. Now that polution has been decreased significantly, it's changing back again.
The deciding factors are the length of a generation and the environmental pressure to adapt. Crocodiles are around since the first dinosaurs and pretty much havn't changed at all and sharks are even twice as old. But since they have a biology that is just perfect for the environments they inhabit, there is no need to change at all. But domesticated animals exist in environments that are completely artificial and only sustained because of human interference. Without human action, these environments would cease to exist within a few years. Or even days, when it comes to things like industrial produced food. Many domesticated animals are no longer able to get their own food or protect themselves against predators, or even lack any protection against the sun, rain, or cold of the outside world. Most of these animals would die very quickly with a massive pressure on any offspring of the survivors
Cats would probably not see much change, but cattle would no longer be recognizable after just a thousand years.

[Ashen Lilies]

I'm no geologist... how long do you think it would take for mother nature to scrub out something like Mount Rushmore? A bunch of faces sticking out of a granite cliff face makes a pretty distinctive landmark... just a thought.

[Ursus the Grim]

In the interest of avoiding a ridiculously long quotapost, I'm going to bold people to whom I'm responding.

TheThan
I only have the vaguest recollection of Cadillacs and Dinosaurs. I'm what we call a "90s kid", so the show had to have been truly awful.

Ravens_Cry
Part 1.
Yeah, that seems to be the current consensus. I've got to accelerate the other primates somehow, or else that's only four playable races I'll have. Alien anthropologists won't be a factor, and I've yet to determine to what extent the modern races will be able to discover and interpret the evidence.

Part 2.
Depending on how long it takes the orbits to decay, frequent meteor storms may be a possible 'thing'. This campaign won't go space-scale, but that doesn't mean I can't implement space junk.

Zeta Kai
Moon junk won't be an issue yet, though perhaps the 'plastic layer' may be a trend, by another name, if somehow it avoids obliteration.

Serpentine
Is there anything you aren't well spoken and helpful with?

Part 1.
I'm not certain how to implement plastic remnants into a low-tech society, but I will give it some thought. Its not like they can recraft it yet (burning plastic does NOT work :D ) but I can't see much use for shards of flat plastic, aside from, perhaps, weapons? I don't think plastic shards make good arrowheads, but they wouldn't be very durable as a melee weapon, nor very effective.

I like the idea of the collapsed city's impact on the landscape. Perhaps modern races observed certain "Great Hills" which are the buried ruins of some of the largest cities? They'd have to excavate pretty thoroughly to find anything, but the sheer amount of material could be a discovery in and of itself.

Finding a garbage dump would be one thing, but interpreting it would be another. Could be amusing to present misinterpretations of things the players already know though. I think I've seen this played in Farscape and Dr. Who, among others.

Its mostly the sentience I'm trying to achieve among the apes with evolution, at least to a level most people would consider. Some would argue that apes are sentient as is, but I want to avoid those gray areas and push them into playable character territory. I think I'll drop a few Black Obelisks into the world, so to speak.

I had anticipated the nanobots to be passed on by blood and reproduction, thus only the humans (Pure and Rampant) and the Quicklings would have them. Though perhaps the End resulted in a cataclysmic release and 'magic apocalypse', bringing the world as it is known later into the present day, dragons and all. Berserk anyone?

Part 2.
Yeah, though as has been mentioned, modern races would have some domestication still. However, I completely agree with wild boar observation. I remember going to a museum when I visited Germany with my mother and seeing the size of those things.

Part 3.
Exactly on about evolution. Its a continuous, generally gradual process. Not always a forward one, either. Though we haven't grown horns or such, there have certainly been some adjustments to what we are in that time scale.

factotum
Thanks. Its been mentioned to me. Though I think I'd like to focus on long-scale changes, as I don't want to waste time learning that the Statue of Liberty will stand for 100 years if I later learn its going to be gone in a thousand.

Yora
Thanks for the observations. I looked at a timeline of the (currently accepted) evolution of man, and I realized it would take far too long for apes to evolve to where "we are now", at least by themselves, even assuming they get the jump start that opposable thumbs is believed to have caused. I'm not looking for them to become indistinguishable from modern man (or orcs), but perhaps able to think and communicate.

Coidzor
As usual, your stinging bluntness carries a 100% true observation. I was being to general with the words, attempting to build a 'big picture without people' and then trying to reinsert people back into the equation.

There would be domestication. There would be agriculture. I wanted to avoid the thought that "Yor the Hunter has a herd of 23 Brahma bulls that he inherited from Yorsan, son of Grelic, son of Hans Jemand, son of Joe Schmoe, you know?"

Caesar
That's exactly what I had hoped to hear. There's no way I can respond with proper thanks for your projections, so I guess. . . thanks a lot? You've given me a lot of pictures, a lot to think about.

Currently
I rolled up randomnly among continents, then countries, then regions, and the players will be starting off in the general region of what used to be Minnesota. I've never been, so I have to get around to reading. If anyone's from the area or has any particular comments for that region, feel free. Of course, random friendly conversation on the subject is still greatly encouraged and appreciated.

Oh great, look what you guys have done. I'm late for class. :smallbiggrin:

[Tyndmyr]

I'm looking for thoughts and suggestions for things that I've missed. 35,000 years isn't enough for plate tectonics to really mix things up, but I'd imagine much of the world would be scrubbed back to nature. The problem is that I can't imagine what, say, my hometown would look like in 35000 years of abandonment.

It would just not exist. 35,000 years is an extremely long time.

Edit: Also, I'm from northern Minnesota if you need details as to the geography. Minnesota as a whole is pretty strongly rural. I would not expect it to have any real signs of human habitation 35,000 years post humanity.

[Yora]

Yora
Thanks for the observations. I looked at a timeline of the (currently accepted) evolution of man, and I realized it would take far too long for apes to evolve to where "we are now", at least by themselves, even assuming they get the jump start that opposable thumbs is believed to have caused. I'm not looking for them to become indistinguishable from modern man (or orcs), but perhaps able to think and communicate.

It's just that apes are doing relative well were they are now. Given the environment they are living in now, there is no immediate pressure that makes only the smartest survive while leaving all the less smart ones to starve or falling prey to other animals.

Evolution doesn't have any direction or target that it wants to reach. All it does is improving the chances of survival in a given environment by selecting those who have traits that make them stay alive longer.
In theory, evolution could even make a creature dumber if that helps in surviving.
While the spontaneous evolution of multicelular life and even large animals like dogs, elephants, sharks, and dinosaurs seems a very likely outcome to me when a planet has the neccessary chemical substances, the evolution of human-like intelligence is something really odd and very specific. Dogs, pigs, crows, and dolphins are really smart animals, but nowhere near what humans have developed. Since the occurance of new traits is random, and selection based on the environment, pretty much everything that a creature on earth could be has been tried at some point, yet something like humans has evolved only once (I use "human" hear in the sense of "dog" or "shark"), so it seems to me that it is an optimal solution for survival only under very specific and rare circumstances.
And it's not as if it has taken us all the time since the beginning of life to become modern humans. Life on earth has had massive setbacks with creatures of the complexity of bears or birds having evolved several times before, before vanishing again. Something human like could have evolved millions of years back, many times, and in many places, but it never did. Being "animals" has worked out for all other on this planet, except for the one single case of humans. It's not neccessary that evolution produces humans and given how rarely it had happened on earth, I say it's very unlikely to find circumstances in which it turns out the best way for a species to evolve to maintain survival.

[Weezer]

There has been no significant evolution in human physiology or brains since Homo Sapiens came on the scene, which is around 50,000 years ago now. We have advanced in knowledge and behaviour since then, but that's about it.

Actually there are a number of areas where Homo Sapiens has evolved, and pretty recently too. Lactose tolerance (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/11/science/11evolve.html) is one of those and is theorized to have evolved about 3000 years ago, around the domestication of dairy cattle (the connection should be obvious), which is why lactose intolerance is still relatively common. It's a common misunderstanding to think that now Homo Sapiens is intelligent it no longer evolves, it'll evolve differently and far slower in many cases, but change still occurs.

[No brains]

Sapient Kea parrots and either Mimic, Coconut, or Great Pacific Octopus. It's not too far a leap as they're already smarter than chimps. [citation war needed]

[Ravens_cry]

Ravens_Cry
Part 1.
Yeah, that seems to be the current consensus. I've got to accelerate the other primates somehow, or else that's only four playable races I'll have. Alien anthropologists won't be a factor, and I've yet to determine to what extent the modern races will be able to discover and interpret the evidence.

By "alien archaeologists" I meant any that are not human, including future evolving sapients.


Part 2.
Depending on how long it takes the orbits to decay, frequent meteor storms may be a possible 'thing'. This campaign won't go space-scale, but that doesn't mean I can't implement space junk.

Not a campaign setting ,but as an idea for a story, I had an idea of a future "alien" scientist looking at lunar (http://pictures.ed-morana.com/ISSTransits/ISSLunarTransit060213_Composite.jpg) and solar (http://www.astropix.com/IMAGES/SHOW_DIG/ISS_Solar_Transit.JPG) transits of the "Sister Moons" with a new high diameter telescope and realizing from their silhouettes that they must be artificial bodies and the impact this has on their culture and the scientist as an individual.

[Kneenibble]

I've read that, some time ago, but what's there is basically a space-society gone rural, isn't it? It still has some high-tech stuff, and with the decent environment of Earth, I can't see a Fremen society developing except on the edges of certain deserts.

Herbert's theories about just how far we might change really only get the conch in the final two books, Heretics of Dune and Chapterhouse: Dune: set 3,500 years after God Emperor of Dune which in turn is set several thousand years after the first three.

The return of the Scattering, the Honored Matres, the interactions between the Duncan Idaho gholas and the recently born -- only here is where the "holy **** it's the future" dialogue really starts.

[Yora]

I had the "it's the future!" moment about 10 years ago. Flying cars aside (which are completely impractical), most of the stuff of 80s sci-fi movies, except for the special gadget the plot evolves around, are redicolously outdated by now.

[Mando Knight]

Part 2.
Depending on how long it takes the orbits to decay, frequent meteor storms may be a possible 'thing'. This campaign won't go space-scale, but that doesn't mean I can't implement space junk.
Most LEO and geosynchronous spacecraft will have burned up thousands of years prior. Believe it or not, space isn't a vacuum devoid of non-gravitational forces, especially around Earth. Even satellites in relatively high orbit need periodic stationkeeping in order keep their orbits correct.

ISS? Gone. Cloud of space dust? Isn't gonna be like in WALL*E... by 35000 years it'll all have crashed to the ground or burnt up trying.

Zeta Kai
Moon junk won't be an issue yet, though perhaps the 'plastic layer' may be a trend, by another name, if somehow it avoids obliteration.
Any plastics that aren't buried (and any of the more reactive ones that are) will likely disintegrate over 35000 years. There may be a plastic layer, but it won't be pure plastic unless they make it so: metals, concrete, glass, etc. will likely make up most of the sediments in the layer.

[shawnhcorey]

What an interesting thread. Here's my 2¢ worth.

First, modern humans evolved (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution) some 200,000 years ago but didn't leave Africa until about 100,000 to 50,000 years ago. Before that, Europe and Asia was full of Homo neanderthalensis and Homo erectus.

Second, the use of stone tools developed some 2.6 to 2.5 million years ago which lead to the hunter-gatherer society.

Third, irrigation agriculture seems to have first taken place in the Indus river valley, now part of Pakistan, some 12,000 to 10,000 years ago. This is the start of civilization since it was the first time a farmer could reliably grow more food than his family could eat. The access food allowed some of the population to dedicate the careers to something other than food production, like manufacturing and politics.

Civilization will exist as long as there are farmers, that is, people who can create more food than they can eat. If it collapses, humans will revert to hunter-gatherer society since our ancestors lived for over 2 millions years in it and its survival instincts are in our genes.

[Reluctance]

Yora
Thanks for the observations. I looked at a timeline of the (currently accepted) evolution of man, and I realized it would take far too long for apes to evolve to where "we are now", at least by themselves, even assuming they get the jump start that opposable thumbs is believed to have caused. I'm not looking for them to become indistinguishable from modern man (or orcs), but perhaps able to think and communicate.

Several great apes can already communicate somewhat via sign language. If you're willing to create a setting with multiple languages, hold the disaster off a couple of decades. There are already lab apes who have taught their offspring how to sign. Some of those lines, given sufficient time and handwaving, could find it beneficial to evolve true language. It'd probably be incompatible with the human larynx, but then, it's also unlikely that humans and various sci-fi aliens are all talk and hear in roughly the same band.


Actually there are a number of areas where Homo Sapiens has evolved, and pretty recently too. Lactose tolerance (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/11/science/11evolve.html) is one of those and is theorized to have evolved about 3000 years ago, around the domestication of dairy cattle (the connection should be obvious), which is why lactose intolerance is still relatively common. It's a common misunderstanding to think that now Homo Sapiens is intelligent it no longer evolves, it'll evolve differently and far slower in many cases, but change still occurs.

Yes, with a but. How far back until our ancestors stop being readily identifiable as humans? How far back until we can't make babies with them? Thinking how future humans will evolve is interesting, but something of a side-note to asking if there'll be an identifiable human character option in the first place.

[TheThan]

Yeah, the Yor, hunter from the future, and Cadillac’s and dinosaurs links were put up there partially in jest.

Placing new and interesting creatures in your campaign world does make perfect sense, especially if these creatures were genetically engineered by the previous society. They could have escaped and proliferated over time.

[factotum]

tho remnants of the structures will certainly remain, both on site and downstream as massive chunks of erroded concrete with rebar in it.

I'd have to disagree with that--those large chunks might remain for a while, but 35,000 years? The concrete would have weathered to nothing and the rebar would, if you're really, really lucky, be a slight iron oxide discolouration in the soil.

As for people jumping on my comment about evolution, I will confess to having perhaps misread Yora's post...I got the impression he was saying that modern humans didn't exist before 10,000 years ago, but I don't think he *did* mean that on re-reading it. I still stand by the gist of my comment, though--you could take a man from 50,000 years ago, put him alongside a modern man from the same part of the world, and you would find it almost impossible to tell the two apart (ignoring obvious cues like dress and speech, obviously).

[Yora]

I am not completely sure about that either. The estimates for the first arrival of humans in america place it at somewhere between 40,000 and 16,000 years ago. And at this time the people who became the ancestors of east asian people and the ancestors of south americans split. Unless there was some great migration in East Asia since then, these modern people would have had the same ancestors some 20 or 30 thousand years ago, but look quite different today. Make it 20,000 years more, and the appearance of people would be a lot more different again.
You would recognize them as humans when given a haircut and modern clothes, but I think there's a great chance that we couldn't make out what part of the world that persons family is from.

What we have of ancient humans is almost entirely bones, but that tells us not much about skin or hair, which were the major factors that made foreigners look exotic before international movies and TV.

[Serpentine]

Its mostly the sentience I'm trying to achieve among the apes with evolution, at least to a level most people would consider. Some would argue that apes are sentient as is, but I want to avoid those gray areas and push them into playable character territory. I think I'll drop a few Black Obelisks into the world, so to speak.I can think of three main approaches to this (and they're not mutually exclusive):

1. Natural selection. Look into the theories of the development of human intelligence. What were the pressures, coincidences and even random mutations (don't forget that deus ex machina option!) that pushed us in that direction? Which ones can you use - and which ones can you push up to 11?

2. Those nanobots you mention. The first thing humans are gonna do with new technology like that is test it on animals. You might like to draw some inspiration, even, from The Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

3. Artificial selection. It's not at all unreasonable to suppose that humans - and/or those aliens - could have a hand in the development of these new "races". Look into some stuff we're already doing - force-domesticating foxes, shoving the millenia of breeding that turned wolves into pomeranians into the space of a few decades; breeding a race of human-hating rats (srsly); and similar. I'd almost be surprised if there isn't already a breeding experiment going on to see how smart we can make some animal.

As alluded to, don't forget things like birds and octopuses. You'll need to come up with something to account for that shift from "really smart animal" to "civilised people", but if all else failed you always have your nanobots up your sleeve.
Any plastics that aren't buried (and any of the more reactive ones that are) will likely disintegrate over 35000 years. There may be a plastic layer, but it won't be pure plastic unless they make it so: metals, concrete, glass, etc. will likely make up most of the sediments in the layer.On the other hand, however, from what I understand, (most?) plastics don't really decompose. They just break up into smaller and smaller pieces. This could potentially, at the least, mess with the soil compositions. If you wanted to actually use that (rather than, say, just "the dirt here is weird"), you could, say, have some plants evolve that can use the microscopic plastics in the soil. Real plastic plants! :O
Yes, with a but. How far back until our ancestors stop being readily identifiable as humans? How far back until we can't make babies with them? Thinking how future humans will evolve is interesting, but something of a side-note to asking if there'll be an identifiable human character option in the first place.
Homo sapiens first appeared about 250,000 years ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#H._sapiens)We can't know for sure, but that's a pretty good guess.
And anyway, Hells, we could do it with Neanderthals.

To be actually helpful on that topic, it is indeed totally reasonable to think there could be one or more new types of humans. How weird must red-heads have been when they first turned up, eh? (even more than now, that's how weird! :O) And yeah, you could potentially have all sorts of weird stuff going on.
Would we still have pinkie toes? Would we still have toes? Would our feet keep getting ridiculously long? Will our hands get even more dextrous? Could there be arboreal humans that are starting to develop fall-slowing skin-flaps? Would we change colour? You might like to check out some speculative science along the lines of "how we're evolving" or somesuch.
Similarly, looking into speculative and in-progress developments might be worthwhile. For example, I read recently somewhere something about genetically modifying animals to be able to photosynthesise. Imagine if that took off, how might that effect your world's ecology?

[Maelstrom]

This (http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/aftermath/environment/index.html) is a good resource, though it only gives you the first 230 years.

Just took a look...so NatGeo is saying that a simple wooden structure is still standing, albeit with a few holes in it after 230 years, but steel re-enforced concrete structures have crumbled away to nearly nothing... Um...

Okkkkeeee



Lots of great STUFF

Great Post Caesar, lots of good insight there.

Great thread, btw

[factotum]

Just took a look...so NatGeo is saying that a simple wooden structure is still standing, albeit with a few holes in it after 230 years, but steel re-enforced concrete structures have crumbled away to nearly nothing...

That actually isn't that unbelievable. What tends to happen with steel reinforced concrete is that the rebar itself rusts after a while; as it rusts, it expands, and cracks the concrete apart from the inside out. Ancient Roman concrete has lasted as long as it has largely because it is NOT reinforced!

[Traab]

Ceaser mentioned concrete and how long it is likely to last, I just wanted to suggest that since city streets and sidewalks are constantly being repaired every year, that 10k years seems wildly optimistic. Id be shocked if within 1000 years there are any recognizable ruins of city streets or sidewalks. Other than them being outlined by ruined hulks of buildings. They would most likely be ground into mulch by encroaching plant life springing up in the cracks as they develop and widen year after year.

[shawnhcorey]

They would most likely be ground into mulch by encroaching plant life springing up in the cracks as they develop and widen year after year.

It is more likely that they will be buried by the plants, as has happen to many foundations, floors, and sidewalks in the past. Only standing structures would remain visible.

[factotum]

Ceaser mentioned concrete and how long it is likely to last, I just wanted to suggest that since city streets and sidewalks are constantly being repaired every year, that 10k years seems wildly optimistic.

We don't even need to guess about this sort of thing. Just search the Web for pictures of Pripyat (the town near Chernobyl that was evacuated when the plant blew its top in 1986) and you can see exactly what happens to a town that's been left deserted for 25 years...then imagine what it would be like after a thousand times as long!

[Mando Knight]

On the other hand, however, from what I understand, (most?) plastics don't really decompose. They just break up into smaller and smaller pieces. This could potentially, at the least, mess with the soil compositions. If you wanted to actually use that (rather than, say, just "the dirt here is weird"), you could, say, have some plants evolve that can use the microscopic plastics in the soil. Real plastic plants! :O
They're mostly organic-based. Although they're relatively stable, a lot of them degrade in quality with exposure to the elements on the macroscopic scale, and they may break down to the point where the polymers can be shattered by the right bacterium or something.

Regardless, the forces of nature would likely break up most plastics near the surface, at least to the point where they've become part of the soil. Depending on the polymer and what gets at it, it may disappear into its components entirely.

[polity4life]

We don't even need to guess about this sort of thing. Just search the Web for pictures of Pripyat (the town near Chernobyl that was evacuated when the plant blew its top in 1986) and you can see exactly what happens to a town that's been left deserted for 25 years...then imagine what it would be like after a thousand times as long!

Not to nitpick but according to this video of Pripyat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYkVatvFLsg) the city isn't in that bad of shape. Obviously neglect has caused some damage but everything is still standing and no where near the point of decay where whole structures will collapse.

However, they won't last. I can imagine buildings and structures made with modern materials and methods would last a few hundred years at most. Perhaps by the four digit point all that would remain are large structures made from stone or small, buried items made of plastic. Thirty-five thousand years? Nothing would remain that would be recognizable. The Great Wall would probably have crumbled. Mount Rushmore would probably have been eroded to the point where no features remain. Obviously anything made of metal was gone thousands of years before.

Of course, I have nothing to back up anything I say. It's just speculation by an arm chair computer jockey playing arm chair chemist and geologist.

[Yora]

We don't even need to guess about this sort of thing. Just search the Web for pictures of Pripyat (the town near Chernobyl that was evacuated when the plant blew its top in 1986) and you can see exactly what happens to a town that's been left deserted for 25 years...then imagine what it would be like after a thousand times as long!

These are good examples:
Here (http://abandonedkansai.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/welcome-to-the-hospital.jpg) you can see the outer layer of the walls starting to fall off after 25 years of nobody tending to the cracks that have started to occure.
And here (http://abandonedkansai.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/the-entrance.jpg) you have a closeup of what errosion does to the bricks once exposed to the elements. Also, there are full trees growing on the concrete and I've seen some sidewalks in Hamburg that had been completely destroyed by roots growing under it like this (http://facettenneukoelln.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/bc3bcrgersteig-mittelweg_neukc3b6lln.jpg) a thousand times.

[Marnath]

Just took a look...so NatGeo is saying that a simple wooden structure is still standing, albeit with a few holes in it after 230 years, but steel re-enforced concrete structures have crumbled away to nearly nothing... Um...

Okkkkeeee



Treated wood doesn't really rot. At least not anywhere as fast as rebar will rust.

[Karoht]

Attention all natural scientists and anyone else with a brain between their ears.

So, laying the groundwork for an "After the End" D&D setting, I've tried to envisage a future in which civilization as we know it crumbles not too far from now. The setting takes place 35000 years after this mysterious collapse.

Things that would probably happen within 35,000 years.

Subways (such as NYC's) would flood and collapse.
Nuclear melt downs.
Pipes in all temperate or cooler cities would burst.
Most crops would revert to wild, unpalatable strains.
Steel corrodes.
Bridges fall, river delta cities washed away, dams crumble.
Most suburbs completely reclaimed by nature, some steel and such remain as relics.
Domesticated animals die out or become feral.
Mediterranean shrinks.

Nuclear systems can and will safely shut down as well. Would an old school facility be potentially in one piece after 35000 years? Doubtful. You might have an exposed reactor, heavily decayed, radioactive halflife pretty much exausted and harmless.
There are some that would overload and meltdown. They would blow up, but after 35000 years there would be hardly a trace.
Pipes would all eventually corrode, shift, break, etc, regardless of climate.



I'm looking for thoughts and suggestions for things that I've missed. 35,000 years isn't enough for plate tectonics to really mix things up, but I'd imagine much of the world would be scrubbed back to nature. The problem is that I can't imagine what, say, my hometown would look like in 35000 years of abandonment.Plate tectonics not so much, but still possible. Depends on how severe the next 'big one' is along known high movement faults.

Ice Age could happen. Not global, would be confined to various areas, or just be patches of major glacial growth/shift.

[Rockphed]

Since earth is probably about overdue for an ice age(I think they happened every 20 thousand years and the last one was about that ago), there will probably be an ice age in the next 35K years. The landscapes of northern Europe, Asia and North America will be completely new. There might be a few northern cities that don't get destroyed, but, at the very least, the Great Lakes will look different.

Buildings built of hewn stone will probably still be standing. Or, at least, be piles of stone sticking up above the top-soil.

The Panama and Suez will probably be identifiable, if not usable.

[Karoht]

Since earth is probably about overdue for an ice age(I think they happened every 20 thousand years and the last one was about that ago), there will probably be an ice age in the next 35K years. The landscapes of northern Europe, Asia and North America will be completely new. There might be a few northern cities that don't get destroyed, but, at the very least, the Great Lakes will look different.

Buildings built of hewn stone will probably still be standing. Or, at least, be piles of stone sticking up above the top-soil.

The Panama and Suez will probably be identifiable, if not usable.
The pyramids are expected to survive for an incredibly long time, the sphynx less so. The Hoover Dam is supposedly pretty tough, as long as the safety systems take it off line properly (no reason why they wouldn't) and open the flood gates, it should still be there. Possibly with more waterflow through the area rather than the water reserve being topped up like it is now.

[Miklus]

I think only two main things would still exist:

1) Long, flat tracks where motorways and railroads used to be. Although the alphalt and the rails are long gone, there will be long scars on the landscape where hills and dips where leveled out. Maybe a tunnel here and there, if it was build through rock.

2) All that lead we put in the gasoline back in the 80s. Some mercury lying around too. Heavy metals just don't go away. But the new inhabitants on Earth would probably not notice. Maybe there would be some items of gold, like rings. Gold don't corrode. There would also be some uranium and plutonium left, most of it well hidden. Aluminum and titanium items are options too, if they where kept dry. How about a sword made from a titanium turbine blade?


Maybe Hoover dam and other large dams would still be there, or at least part of them. They are made of water resistant concrete and lots of it.

Maybe the Panama canal could be recognized. The moved a lot of rock for that one. The Suez would probably sand over, though.

The pyramids could still be there, I don't think they would erode away.

[paddyfool]

This is quite interesting: the oldest buildings in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_buildings_in_the_world).

Seems the longest anything's stayed standing so far is about 5,000 years.

Generally, these would seem to have survived due to some combination of being (a) built in stone, (b) built underground, (c) in a sufficiently remote location that nobody's bothered to pull them apart for building materials, and (d) not on a volcano etc.

So, what might survive seven times that long from the present?

Maybe some of the above linked structures, and other monuments, e.g. Stonehenge.

Maybe other sturdy stone structures of later ages in sheltered locations (castles, temples, cathedrals, etc.)

Maybe, as well, some of the toughest fortifications of the modern age. What would it take for the toughest nuclear bunkers of the cold war to fall apart? What would an alien race who unearthed them make of them anyway?

And what of structures that had collapsed, but remained as strange shapes? Would there be an oddly-shaped line of stone marking where the Great Wall stood? A lump of rusted iron marking the one-time location of the Eiffel Tower?

And what of artefacts in corrosion-resistant metals, such as gold, platinum, or titanium? The oldest gold coin in the world is, again, about 5,000 years old, but that doesn't really place an upper limit on how long one might survive (especially without people resmelting such artefacts to other purposes). Might pieces of titanium aircraft, spaceships, and buildings remain behind us?

EDIT to sum up: we know that some manmade stuff in durable materials lasts for 5,000 years at least, in spite of all the actions of time and people. There are a lot more of us, making a lot more stuff, than there used to be. Even if only 1/1,000th of what survives for 5,000 years makes it to seven times that space of time, artefacts would likely remain. Which conjures up an image of alien archeologists unearthing gold necklaces, platinum rings and titanium rotors, and pondering their function. Or sentapes (an idea for a name for those sentient apes of yours) unearthing a tomb of lost technology,in the form of an ancient nuclear bunker, or some contraption built by these guys (http://longnow.org/about/).

EDIT 2: The oldest artefacts that have survived all right are clay pot fragments from 17,000 years ago. Some modern ceramics are much, much harder. And again, we make a lot more stuff. So something in that line should definitely survive.

[Traab]

What makes me wonder is, how much of what we think we know about how humanity evolved and developed is wrong, because the other areas humans might have been born in, was unsuitable for leaving behind these 10,000 year old or more relics? There is no sign of them remaining because it was too damp during that time period, and everything molded away, or otherwise eroded into unrecognizable lumps.

[paddyfool]

What makes me wonder is, how much of what we think we know about how humanity evolved and developed is wrong, because the other areas humans might have been born in, was unsuitable for leaving behind these 10,000 year old or more relics? There is no sign of them remaining because it was too damp during that time period, and everything molded away, or otherwise eroded into unrecognizable lumps.

Oh, there have been all sorts of conjecture about ancient, pre-Sumerian civilisations. Just no evidence. Prior to 10,000 BC, there's evidence for pottery, the beginnings of agriculture, and things of a similar sort of level, but nothing more. But that's just as I understand it, and IANAE.

[Ursus the Grim]

Many thanks to all for the input and conjecture. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to put the setting on hold until I handle other, more important things right now. Feel free to continue to discuss it, of course, but don't expect me to answer every post.

[Karoht]

I just realized that +35000 years puts the setting at approximately 37000 AD. Is this the approximate timeline?
Does this setting have anything to do with the Warhammer 40K universe?

[Caesar]

Ceaser mentioned concrete and how long it is likely to last, I just wanted to suggest that since city streets and sidewalks are constantly being repaired every year, that 10k years seems wildly optimistic. Id be shocked if within 1000 years there are any recognizable ruins of city streets or sidewalks. Other than them being outlined by ruined hulks of buildings. They would most likely be ground into mulch by encroaching plant life springing up in the cracks as they develop and widen year after year.

Thought that would get brought up. What I mean is this:

Concrete is essentially a sedimentary stone, and could be likened to a mixture of limestone, sandstone, and chert, albeight having undergone much less pressure, and being made of somewhat larger pieces. These parameters themselves vary from concrete to concrete as well.. you have hardened concrete and softer versions, you have rougher mixes and finely milled ingredients, and so on. But atomicly, it isnt any different from many kinds of stone.

Therefore, many types of concrete would indeed last for millenia, depending on weathering. Obviously, running water will eat thru it much as the Colorado River has chewed thru the sandstone cliffs of the Grand Canyon. Blowing sand would ravage it as well, see the Sphynx of Egypt. But the overall large pieces? They would remain, just broken and worn down.

So in the right conditions, you could expect to find quite a lot of concrete left over, tho the actual structures would be anything but "intact", except in the most protected of environments. Now city streets I mentioned specifically as not lasting 50 years, and sidewalks I also said specifically I wouldnt give them but a few hundred years. EDIT (Ok i said max ten thousand, which in retrospect is way on the high end) While not asphalt like the roads, they are simply too small to not be broken up, or buried completely, or swept away into nothing, etc.. Im takling here, after all, not of "how long will this structure remain intact" but "how long will the bulk of its material remain in more or less a recognizable form, ie as concrete"

Now, about the torn shoulders of a mega-dam? The broken monolithic boulders lodged downstream after the initial flood? You could definitely expect to find remnants such as these. As well, large superhighways, also made of heavily reinfoced, ultra hardened concrete (it tends to be the best you can buy), ought to weather the ages in blocks and pieces, broken up by landslides and watercourses, but otherwise to be found. I am not speaking, tho, of the flimsier sorts of highways you see in rural valley settings, which see less traffic and require less engineering.

As for the rebar, I also mentioned that it would be rusted away, _except_ where it was well protected inside of hardened concrete. If the concrete doesnt break, eventually the oxidation creates a protective barrier and the iron inside will no longer corrode (this could even happen without being well coated in concrete, but chances are higher for more extreme weathering, so its less likely). This lends internal structural integrity to the blocks, and goes to further their overall lifespan as large pieces.

[Karoht]

A well lined with concrete or stones might survive long enough to be found by geological survey and palentological equipment. Aliens might find them, maybe.


There are a type of survival shelter made from either a type of fibreglass or polyurathane type plastic, or some similar substance. You then bury them in the ground, they have entrances/exits and whatnot.
The downside is, I am certain there are some metal parts. The upside is, plastics and similar synthetics don't biodegrade for an incredibly long time, and some only biodegrade partially, not fully. Plastics in the right conditions might be recoverable, maybe. And there are a lot of plastics on this planet these days.

[Cirrylius]

After People is definitely what you want. Almost all of these questions are answered there.

And IIRC, Mount Rushmore was the last monument left standing, even after a hundred thousand years. Not in great SHAPE, but still. Hoover dam only lasted like 700 years, I think.

[Knaight]

First, corrections:

In terms of evolution, the critical factor is the number of generations, not the time period--so bacteria, which can have generations measured in hours, evolve extremely rapidly, while human beings (with the usual 20-30 years between generations) don't evolve as fast. Even given that, though, for most species 35,000 years is a drop in the ocean as far as evolutionary timescales are concerned.

Wrong. Look at taxonomy: Of the 5 kingdoms, 2 are basically types of bacteria. Among animals, insects dominate, which frequently have generations measured in days. Among plants, there are fewer species of trees, bushes, etc. than of phytoplankton. The vast majority of life is concentrated on the small end, compared to the animals humans routinely interact with. Lifespans are short, generational periods shorter, and given a change in environment evolution happens very, very quickly. Humans wiping themselves out and the reclamation of human areas by nature without humans is a situation asking for punctuated equilibrium style explosions of evolution if there ever was anything that did so.

Now, speculation: Stone lasts a very long time, and concrete is basically a stone. As such, we can expect some amount of concrete structures to last, particularly anything low, thick, and not hugely hollow. In short, dams. The Hoover Dam almost certainly will last, as stated above, but it is one of many. North America will have quite a few, China will have quite a few, so on and so forth. One would also expect bridges to partially last - mostly they would fall apart, but some have very strong concrete foundations, such as the Akashi Bridge. Sure, it would be surrounded by glass, iron, etc. on the sea bed, and most of that would be reclaimed quickly, but the massive concrete pylons supporting the bridge aren't going away any time soon.

In addition to stone is a few other materials. Glass is fairly durable, so I would expect some amount of it to still be present, if not necessarily unbroken. Then there is aluminum. Steel rusts, and outside of steel completely encased in concrete or similar that much isn't likely to be prevented. Aluminum, however, oxidizes in such a way as to form a thin protective layer, then stops oxidizing. It has the capacity to last, and as such chunks of it will be easily accessible. Which means that when metallurgy is redeveloped, aluminum will be among the first things used in a large scale. That will have profound implications for technological development, and could be a thread on its own.

[Mando Knight]

Then there is aluminum. Steel rusts, and outside of steel completely encased in concrete or similar that much isn't likely to be prevented. Aluminum, however, oxidizes in such a way as to form a thin protective layer, then stops oxidizing. It has the capacity to last, and as such chunks of it will be easily accessible. Which means that when metallurgy is redeveloped, aluminum will be among the first things used in a large scale. That will have profound implications for technological development, and could be a thread on its own.
Aluminum, particularly the structural alloys used in aircraft and other light-bodied vehicles, actually is vulnerable to corrosion due to the heat treatment, artificial aging, and alloying processes. I suspect that after 35000 years, all aluminum will be back to a relatively useless ore or in a structurally less-useful form like the aluminum used in soda cans. Iron, though it corrodes easily, is relatively easily refined from its oxide compared to aluminum.

[Maelstrom]

...

Now, speculation: Stone lasts a very long time, and concrete is basically a stone. As such, we can expect some amount of concrete structures to last, particularly anything low, thick, and not hugely hollow. In short, dams. The Hoover Dam almost certainly will last, as stated above, but it is one of many. North America will have quite a few...

Problem with dams, is that they are constantly under huge amounts of pressure from the water, with engineers controlling the flow of water. Without the people carefully controlling the levels of water behind them, the spillway will get constant use and wear, leading to failure (or even enough water to top the damn completely -- that is likely to lead to immediate failure)...and when dams fail, they did not stick around long...

[Shadow Lord]

If it's 35,000 years in the future, even if the entire Human civilization restarts, we'll still be 25,000 years ahead than we are right now. So... this new place is going to be extremely advanced.

[OverdrivePrime]

I'm late to the discussion, but I noticed that on page one, The World Without Us was mentioned. That would absolutely be my go-to source for what'll be left. It's an absolutely excellent book. There are a lot of good (free) resources on the website for the World Without Us. (http://worldwithoutus.com/index2.html)

Also, in my world planning for my own campaigns, I've found Jared Diamond's book, Guns, Germs and Steel (http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/) to be an invaluable help.

[Ursus the Grim]

If it's 35,000 years in the future, even if the entire Human civilization restarts, we'll still be 25,000 years ahead than we are right now. So... this new place is going to be extremely advanced.

I'm still following the thread, and just want to clarify this. The scraps of civlization are going to be rebuilding not from 20XX. They'll be removed from the Equation until about 270XX when they return to the earth. I've been planning out this alot, but its finals week, so I can't really put it all together just yet.

[Ravens_cry]

That also assumes that progress is inevitable, when a lot of technological innovation has been the result of accidents and forces beyond the inventors control.
For example, the Greeks invented a crude impulse steam turbine, but it remained a curiosity, a toy.
The Black Plague killed millions, possibly making devices that did the work of more more attractive and feasible.
It certainly gave the peasants that remained more of a voice.

[factotum]

The Black Plague killed millions, possibly making devices that did the work of more more attractive and feasible.


Given the Black Death was at its peak in Europe in 1350, and the Industrial Revolution didn't really get going until 1750 or thereabouts, I doubt there's a direct link between the two!

[Serpentine]

Given the Black Death was at its peak in Europe in 1350, and the Industrial Revolution didn't really get going until 1750 or thereabouts, I doubt there's a direct link between the two!I dunno. The high death rates from the Black Death resulted in the abolition of serfs, increased the rights and workplace quality of peasants and workers, and caused increased urbanisation. I don't think it's much of a leap to say that was a significant influence on the emergence of the Industrial Revolution.

[golentan]

Indeed. The black plague is directly correlated with the increasing numbers of the middle class in europe around the time, which in turn directly fueled the renaissance. Without which, the knowledge base and even physical resources for the enlightenment period and the industrial revolution would not have occurred. A time delay of generations does not mean that causation isn't there.

[Knaight]

Given the Black Death was at its peak in Europe in 1350, and the Industrial Revolution didn't really get going until 1750 or thereabouts, I doubt there's a direct link between the two!

The Industrial Revolution was not the first case of machinery. There was a massive waterwheel boom following the Black Death, and to a smaller extent a windmill boom as well. Moreover, there was development of hand powered machinery - looms were improved fairly significantly, for instance, and the textiles industry in general was far more efficient. Waterwheels were used for more purposes, from the traditional flour production to pumping bellows and operating looms.

[Wardog]

To be actually helpful on that topic, it is indeed totally reasonable to think there could be one or more new types of humans. How weird must red-heads have been when they first turned up, eh? (even more than now, that's how weird! :O) And yeah, you could potentially have all sorts of weird stuff going on.
Would we still have pinkie toes? Would we still have toes? Would our feet keep getting ridiculously long? Will our hands get even more dextrous? Could there be arboreal humans that are starting to develop fall-slowing skin-flaps? Would we change colour? You might like to check out some speculative science along the lines of "how we're evolving" or somesuch.
Similarly, looking into speculative and in-progress developments might be worthwhile. For example, I read recently somewhere something about genetically modifying animals to be able to photosynthesise. Imagine if that took off, how might that effect your world's ecology?

I doubt those would happen (at least without intervention by the aliens or nanotech etc), as they are probably too large a change to occur naturally, and I don't see any obvious selection pressure that would favour them.

The exception is "change colour", as I think 35ky would be long enough to "reformat" human racial differences, so the descendents of dark-skinned people who were living at high latitudes when civilization collapsed would have light skin, and the descendents of light-skinned people who were living at low latitudes would be dark skinned. I don't know what caused the various other physical differences between peoples to develop (e.g. nose/mouth/head etc shape), so they won't necessarily be repeated in the future. (So hypothetically Future-Europeans might look like white-skinned Africans, and Futrue-Africans might look like black-skinned Asians).

Although if people were playing around with genetic engineering before the Collapse (or if aliens did it afterwards) then all bets are off. You might even end up with e.g. green-skinned people people with chlorophyl in their skin allowing them to photosynthesis. Or people with red skin and blue hair (we can produce those pigments in our eyes, so maybe someone or something could have caused future humans to produce them in their skin as well).

***

The other thing that needs to be addressed, which I'm not sure anyone has so far, is how much does civilization collapse.

Is this a reversion to a medieval-style existance? (I.e. no tech other than human/animal/wind/water power), but still with functioning states covering terratories of several hundred miles?

Or are we going back to a pre-classical or late-prehistoric type society, where the largest states consist of one city, ruled by a king who's authority only extends as far as he can rid in one day (and most people in the world will be too far from population centres to be ruled by anyone), and is considered spectacularly wealthy if he owns a bigger herd of cattle than anyone else?

Or are we going all the way back to stone-age hunter-gather societies?

[paddyfool]

Aluminum, particularly the structural alloys used in aircraft and other light-bodied vehicles, actually is vulnerable to corrosion due to the heat treatment, artificial aging, and alloying processes. I suspect that after 35000 years, all aluminum will be back to a relatively useless ore or in a structurally less-useful form like the aluminum used in soda cans. Iron, though it corrodes easily, is relatively easily refined from its oxide compared to aluminum.

Indeed. Which is why when I was looking at metals, I focused on gold, platinum, and titanium. The third of which, in particular, should leave some very interesting artefacts for future alien archeologists to ponder. (Although modern ceramics probably beat all of the above for durability).



The other thing that needs to be addressed, which I'm not sure anyone has so far, is how much does civilization collapse.

Is this a reversion to a medieval-style existance? (I.e. no tech other than human/animal/wind/water power), but still with functioning states covering terratories of several hundred miles?

Or are we going back to a pre-classical or late-prehistoric type society, where the largest states consist of one city, ruled by a king who's authority only extends as far as he can rid in one day (and most people in the world will be too far from population centres to be ruled by anyone), and is considered spectacularly wealthy if he owns a bigger herd of cattle than anyone else?

Or are we going all the way back to stone-age hunter-gather societies?

I thought from how it was described in the OP that humanity became extinct in this scenario (maybe a plague specific to us wiped us out?) and what was starting again was some new sentient ape. But I could be wrong, of course.

[Mando Knight]

(Although modern ceramics probably beat all of the above for durability).Debatable. Mostly depends on the ceramic and what it's subjected to. I can almost guarantee that there will be nothing left of the space shuttles' heat shield tiles without some kind of intervention.

[paddyfool]

Debatable. Mostly depends on the ceramic and what it's subjected to. I can almost guarantee that there will be nothing left of the space shuttles' heat shield tiles without some kind of intervention.

I was basing this on an argument by the Long Now Foundation (http://longnow.org/clock/):


Ceramics will outlast most metals. We have found shards of clay pots 17,000 years old. And modern ceramics can be as hard as diamonds. All the bearings in the Clock will be engineered ceramic. Because these bearings are so hard, and rotate at very low speed, they require no lubrication – which normally attracts grit and eventually cause wear.

But I am not a materials scientist, so I really don't know how long a space shuttle heat shield or [whatever other ceramic object] would survive.

[Mando Knight]

I was basing this on an argument by the Long Now Foundation (http://longnow.org/clock/):



But I am not a materials scientist, so I really don't know how long a space shuttle heat shield or [whatever other ceramic object] would survive.

The thing is that modern ceramics are engineered for different purposes. The heat shield tiles crumble in your hands because in order to get the thermal properties the engineers wanted, they had to make sacrifices elsewhere in the material properties. I hope for their sakes the Long Now foundation spent the time and money to get mechanical and materials engineers to guide their choice in materials for that clock, since with the scale they're looking at fatigue will be a major issue...

[Ravens_cry]

In the right conditions, even wood (http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/behavior/oldest-wooden-spear) can last over an over of magnitude more than the time frame mentioned. We should leave a rosetta stone of some kind, with a symbol language with symbols as unambiguous as we can make them. Even if it imparts little useful knowledge, a little "we were hear" would be nice.

[paddyfool]

In the right conditions, even wood (http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/behavior/oldest-wooden-spear) can last over an over of magnitude more than the time frame mentioned. We should leave a rosetta stone of some kind, with a symbol language with symbols as unambiguous as we can make them. Even if it imparts little useful knowledge, a little "we were hear" would be nice.

Already been (being?) done. (http://rosettaproject.org/about/)