Life After People

I watched the History Channel's "Life After People" last night, which depicts the Earth's return to a natural state after man is gone. This is IMO one of the best presentations THC has ever produced, leaving the viewer in awe of the power of natural forces.

The program runs again this Wednesday evening - set 2 hours aside to watch it!

You're right, Jim! I saw it and thought the program was extremely well done!

I don't know if the show was spawned by this, but the movie "I Am Legend" that came out over the holidays showed New York City after 3 years without people. I wondered if the movie's idea was accurate or not - and based on the show last night, it seems like they did a pretty good job. The examples shown with Pripyat (abandoned since the Chernobyl disaster) and the other abandoned areas were particularly interesting.

I've got it TIVO'd for tonight and am very much looking forward to it. I am currently reading "The World Without Us" by Alan Weisman so they should be good companion pieces. This is a subject I find completely fascinating.

I think I would like to be around when the Brooklyn Bridge collapses. Be interesting to get that on film. WAIT, I am a person so I am out of luck?!

It followed the book "The World Without Us" pretty well. The book went a lot more in depth concerning our waste and what effect that will have on the planet, it is a great book for anyone interested in the environment.

I haven't seen any of them (the price of rural life), but coming from a position of absolute ignorance I wonder what comparisons any of you might draw to the process of "rural decay"- small towns dying, ghost towns, abandoned vehicles rusting into lumps, old abandoned farm houses decaying into the fields, even farm lands abadoned and allow to go feral? All of those have been favorite photo subjects for generations, but I wonder how they fit into the context here.

Hank, all of our "stuff" - without the benefit of human maintenance - goes away quite quickly. In 1000 years, Manhatten Island would return to a completely natural state. In the mean time, the decaying buildings would be home to all kinds of life - birds, insects, feral cats, etc. Most large buildings/skyscrapers will collapse in 300 to 500 years. In 10,000 years, you'd be hard pressed to find any signs at all of our existance, with the possible exception of Mt. Rushmore and the sand-buried remains of the Egyptian pyramids.

The show also had IMO some really great scientific/philosophical points to consider, especially at the end. For example, at the end of the show the question is raised as to what species will rise to take man's place. They show a chimp using a stick as a tool and state that many primates would learn to use tools, but that it's still huge and very uncertain leap to a being that "gazes into the night sky and ponders its place in the universe."

It left me with a greater appreciation of how special, yet insignificant our existance is.

Thanks Jim. I've had much the same reaction visiting Mesa Verde.

I did notice they left out what happens with our plastics and heavy metals. Unfortunately they would be around for quite a while after people were gone. Its nice to see though that animals still seem to thrive where we are told never to go.

Here is a timeline from the book that shows the progression that scientists seem to think will happen, it is also where they got many of the facts from THC documentary:
http://www.worldwithoutus.com/did_you_know.html

Hank - If you get to see it, they use a bunch of real life examples to show what they are basing their projections on. So abandoned cars and town are really a part of the basis for the whole show. One of the neatest examples (I thought) was the soccer field in Pripyat. They show the stands which are in fairly good shape, completely recognizable. Then they show the field, which is essentially a forest. Makes for a neat contrast.

One of the neatest examples (I thought) was the soccer field in Pripyat. They show the stands which are in fairly good shape, completely recognizable. Then they show the field, which is essentially a forest. Makes for a neat contrast.

Yes, that was an interesting scene, to see how quickly the soccer field was reclaimed by Nature.

We've been dealing with what sounds like a similar process- "reclaiming" feral ag lands. Our place in the Southwest was originally a ranch/farm settled in the late 1800's. It's overgrown with non-native vegetation now, and we're in the slow process of stripping that out and restoring it to original. Along the way removing the brush (!@#$%@$%$#% tamarisc!!!!) we've exposed a 1880's era irrigation canal and the field stone foundation of a building. Without our clearing you would never guess human hands had ever been at work on the land, that is if you could endure the fact that the various plants doing the work were entirely invasive non-native species.

Did they get into the role of invasive species in the process? Wherever I go, whether the Southwest or Hawaii, invasive species are so much better at making a living than the native species, I have to really wonder what the earth would look like once we stop trying to control them, but also once we stopped importing them.

They actually did cover invasive species of plants and even got as far as mentioning zoo animals and their abilities to survive. It was interesting to think of lions and other African animals roaming the states. I guess there is fossil evidence of these animals being here long ago so that shows its not a terrible stretch to think they still can thrive here.

Hank, on an animal-related note, there was a section on man's long time persecution of wolves and how based on their recent reintroduction success in Yellowstone, how wolf populations would grow rapidly.

The program leaves no doubt that most if not all wildlife would greatly benefit from the absence of man and our meddlings.

Well Jim - "meddling" might be a little overly negative, since some what we do that hurts animals could just be terned "living" or "eating"

Great show, but I missed the very first part of it. Did they give a reason that mankind ceased to exist?

The show also had IMO some really great scientific/philosophical points to consider, especially at the end. For example, at the end of the show the question is raised as to what species will rise to take man's place. They show a chimp using a stick as a tool and state that many primates would learn to use tools, but that it's still huge and very uncertain leap to a being that "gazes into the night sky and ponders its place in the universe."

There's a wonderful science fiction short story from the 1960's -- can't remember the author or title. But mankind is dying out, and leaves as its gift to its future successor by the seashore a large metal plaque with key scientific formulae etched in titanium steel.

As the last dying human watches, a sea otter comes out of the ocean and glances at the plaque for a moment. It scratches a correction with its claw, and then goes back to the ocean...

Bill, I missed the first half hour too. Will catch it all tonight as the same question crossed my mind.

Jim, the short story you describe almost sounds like a Twilight Zone episode. I have always thought that large sea mammals are far more intelligent than we realize.

I don't recall any reason being given for human's dissappearance. It was just sort of "assume we all dissappeared".

What was very clear in this wonderful program was that the rest of the animal kingdom would generally be very happy with humans gone. It made me very sad to see what a toll we've taken on them.

- Dan.

I don't know about "very happy" Dan, but it would certainly lessen some of the overall animal populations problems. Every day would still be a struggle for food and survival, and while, for instance, deer populations would grow, so would the wolves that hunt them. And the show also discusses a few populations that are better off with humans here - mice and rats in particular - which is probably why we consider them pests.