"Life after people" on the History Channel

Online now: Google [Bot], Pariah
Post Reply
The show

Anybody else see it? I thought it was quite entertaining, although I thought they didn't go far enough. I've often found myself wondering what would be left of human activity after tens of millions of years, after geological forces had had some time to grind everything up.

A fun (though rather dark) watch, I give it the official Shnicky Seal of Approval.
moff moff Super Happy Fun Time
User avatar
i watched it too, it was entertaining, 'cept the part about the dogs in the house, that made me sad to think about :(
tiki Minor Prophetess
User avatar
Some of it seemed really overdone. Like their artistic rendering of New York after 5 years looked strangely similar to the actual Chernobyl footage from 20y out.

That and I kept thinking "WTF is going to kill off all the people that isn't going to take out the dogs as well." But that's probably just the nitpicker in me. ;)

It was an interesting take on it though. A lot of cool information.
tiki wrote:
Some of it seemed really overdone. Like their artistic rendering of New York after 5 years looked strangely similar to the actual Chernobyl footage from 20y out.

That and I kept thinking "WTF is going to kill off all the people that isn't going to take out the dogs as well." But that's probably just the nitpicker in me. ;)

It was an interesting take on it though. A lot of cool information.


I might have thought that too, except that when I went to New Orleans just a few months after its flood and resulting abandonment I was astonished by the degree to which nature had already started to reclaim the area.
tiki Minor Prophetess
User avatar
A large part of that is natural disaster though. Water comes through, destroys homes. Same with fire, earthquakes, tornados. Stuff that's just sitting around isn't as susceptible.

Another thing that caught my attention was the burning. I mean yes, someplace in SoCal is gonna burn in a hurry. But Chicago? It's already burned once - everything there is brick. It ain't gonna burn so well. Also, how are only the top stories of skyscrapers going to burn? Are the rest just immune to fire damage? And why Rome? What makes it so susceptible?
moff moff Super Happy Fun Time
User avatar
you have to think that fires will be more devastating and more frequent once if man no more, and the first few years of our demise the fires would be more frequent due to the fact that the forests have basically become overcrowded because of our firefighting. Locally, the average number of trees has grown 10x per acre then that of the early 1900's. That makes for a lot of fuel, and I am sure there will be more then just a few cities that get burned.

I don't think they were trying to say that rome was more susceptible, I think they were just giving generalizations for what could occur to all cities
Dude, a house can burn to the ground, whether it's got brick walls or not. And a huge city without anyone to put out flames can easily suffer immense damage.

Until the modern era, whole cities were routinely devastated by fire. All it would take is a lightning strike to get the ball rolling. That's what the reference was -- it burned down in ancient times.

As for New Orleans, it wasn't just the flood, it was the abandonment. The wildlife began moving back almost immediately, stuff started getting overgrown.

The theme of the show is that the idea that we've somehow controlled nature is just an illusion; leave the scene for awhile and it all comes apart.

By the way I think they were wrong about the dogs a bit. I remember being in Moscow and seeing packs of feral dogs scavenging for food, and there were all sorts of breeds (including little bitty lap dogs).
obvs Social Distancing Grandmaster
Send private message
spike attempting to look on the bright side
User avatar
I thought Rome burned because Nero set the fires
matt wrote:
:brow:

Is this our first dupe?

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=55


And authored by me, of course.
sean Royal Wombat
User avatar
I just downloaded it from the iTMS. Thought it was excellent. One of the better History Channel special presentations, imo.
Shnicky-Poo wrote:

The theme of the show is that the idea that we've somehow controlled nature is just an illusion; leave the scene for awhile and it all comes apart.


This is interesting.
It wouldn't occur to me in a million years that nature was controlled because I work with/against/whatever you call it, daily.
It is also very apparent to me just how resilient nature is.
Both opinions are different than what is more commonly expressed by city people imho.
Farmerkev wrote:
Shnicky-Poo wrote:

The theme of the show is that the idea that we've somehow controlled nature is just an illusion; leave the scene for awhile and it all comes apart.


This is interesting.
It wouldn't occur to me in a million years that nature was controlled because I work with/against/whatever you call it, daily.
It is also very apparent to me just how resilient nature is.
Both opinions are different than what is more commonly expressed by city people imho.


This "city people" shtick of yours is fast degenerating into a Bedstuyesque meme.
Conner Of Gallifrey
User avatar
Farmerkev wrote:
Shnicky-Poo wrote:

The theme of the show is that the idea that we've somehow controlled nature is just an illusion; leave the scene for awhile and it all comes apart.


This is interesting.
It wouldn't occur to me in a million years that nature was controlled because I work with/against/whatever you call it, daily.
It is also very apparent to me just how resilient nature is.
Both opinions are different than what is more commonly expressed by city people imho.


I bet you had to hand peddle the generator so you could post on the 'tubes too, right?
Shnicky-Poo wrote:
Farmerkev wrote:
Shnicky-Poo wrote:

The theme of the show is that the idea that we've somehow controlled nature is just an illusion; leave the scene for awhile and it all comes apart.


This is interesting.
It wouldn't occur to me in a million years that nature was controlled because I work with/against/whatever you call it, daily.
It is also very apparent to me just how resilient nature is.
Both opinions are different than what is more commonly expressed by city people imho.


This "city people" shtick of yours is fast degenerating into a Bedstuyesque meme.


It's a noticeably different mentality, I'm guessing based on a persons daily experience.
I don't need a tv show to tell me what happens if I quit fighting nature, I see it every time I slack off the least little bit.
Your experience though is quite different. For example, you don't see the wood line push out several feet every year and have to fight it back. You don't see trees and brush sprout up in the middle of a waterway, miles away from the woods, when you skip mowing it one year. I've watched dozens of abandoned farmsteads literally fall apart without maintenance in just a very short time.
Nature is a uncouth individual and a constant fight.
juice Inadvertently correct
User avatar
Anyone with a lawn of any size should tell you that, farmer. ;)
agedgruel wrote:
Anyone with a lawn of any size should tell you that, farmer. ;)

My yard is 3.5 acres, don't even ask how many acres of barn lots, miles of roads, lanes and waterways.
tiki Minor Prophetess
User avatar
Shnicky-Poo wrote:
Dude, a house can burn to the ground, whether it's got brick walls or not. And a huge city without anyone to put out flames can easily suffer immense damage.

Until the modern era, whole cities were routinely devastated by fire. All it would take is a lightning strike to get the ball rolling. That's what the reference was -- it burned down in ancient times..

Cities were devastated by fire because idiots had torches that set things on fire.

I just don't think fires caused by lightning strikes happen that often, globally. I haven't heard of a fire in this area since I moved here. Even if it did, everything is so damn wet during the summer, I'm not sure it would really burn that well.

This is a different matter, of course, in different locations. But I don't think our cities would all have burned instantly within the first couple years.
tiki Minor Prophetess
User avatar
Shnicky-Poo wrote:

As for New Orleans, it wasn't just the flood, it was the abandonment. The wildlife began moving back almost immediately, stuff started getting overgrown.

And again, this will vary by location. I have spent a lot of time in ghost towns, and not all them instantly revert to their natural state. It entirely depends upon location, and what it was that caused them to be abandoned. NO is a very wet location that was left devastated. Towns in drier areas wouldn't have the same set of problems. Phoenix, for example.
dv
User avatar
Farmerkev wrote:
agedgruel wrote:
Anyone with a lawn of any size should tell you that, farmer. ;)

My yard is 3.5 acres, don't even ask how many acres of barn lots, miles of roads, lanes and waterways.


Non sequitor.

Also, I've seen flowers grow through driveways.
tiki wrote:
Shnicky-Poo wrote:
Dude, a house can burn to the ground, whether it's got brick walls or not. And a huge city without anyone to put out flames can easily suffer immense damage.

Until the modern era, whole cities were routinely devastated by fire. All it would take is a lightning strike to get the ball rolling. That's what the reference was -- it burned down in ancient times..

Cities were devastated by fire because idiots had torches that set things on fire.

I just don't think fires caused by lightning strikes happen that often, globally. I haven't heard of a fire in this area since I moved here. Even if it did, everything is so damn wet during the summer, I'm not sure it would really burn that well.

This is a different matter, of course, in different locations. But I don't think our cities would all have burned instantly within the first couple years.


The show didn't say all the cities burned, it didn't even say how many burned; just that some would burn, and I think that's fair to say.

As for the climate issue, lots of places have dry spells. Lightning strikes trigger brushfires and forest fires all the time, it's not unusual.
oatmeal with raisins
User avatar
Just saw it. Interesting concept. Relatively well done... but:

- Crappy CGI.
- Replaying the same image over and over again just to pass the time. They showed the Space Needle fall... what was it? Four times in a row? Then they kept repeating it throughout the show.
- Plastic? They didn't say anything about how long it lasts.
- Buried things? Coffins and such? We still find graves from millennia ago.
- The "Three Rivers Gorge Dam" in China.
Quote:
How big is this dam?

Massive. At 2.3 kilometres long... about 27 million cubic metres of concrete have gone into the structure... that's more than eight times as much as has been poured into the Hoover dam on the Colorado River.
It has 26 generators as compared to Hoover's 17. No word on the local mollusk population, though.
Alexander Supertramp this was uncalled for.
User avatar
oatmeal wrote:
Just saw it. Interesting concept. Relatively well done... but:

- Crappy CGI.
- Replaying the same image over and over again just to pass the time. They showed the Space Needle fall... what was it? Four times in a row? Then they kept repeating it throughout the show.



I love the History Channel, but I have to admit that it's not really a History Channel show without those two things you mentioned.
Jehannum 2 people shy of a threesome
Banned User(s)
User avatar
John wrote:
oatmeal wrote:
Just saw it. Interesting concept. Relatively well done... but:

- Crappy CGI.
- Replaying the same image over and over again just to pass the time. They showed the Space Needle fall... what was it? Four times in a row? Then they kept repeating it throughout the show.



I love the History Channel, but I have to admit that it's not really a History Channel show without those two things you mentioned.

Those and Hitler.
oatmeal wrote:
Just saw it. Interesting concept. Relatively well done... but:

- Crappy CGI.
- Replaying the same image over and over again just to pass the time. They showed the Space Needle fall... what was it? Four times in a row? Then they kept repeating it throughout the show.
- Plastic? They didn't say anything about how long it lasts.
- Buried things? Coffins and such? We still find graves from millennia ago.
- The "Three Rivers Gorge Dam" in China.
Quote:
How big is this dam?

Massive. At 2.3 kilometres long... about 27 million cubic metres of concrete have gone into the structure... that's more than eight times as much as has been poured into the Hoover dam on the Colorado River.
It has 26 generators as compared to Hoover's 17. No word on the local mollusk population, though.


Wow, an American production that throws in the rest of the world as an afterthought (at best)? NO WAI!
oatmeal with raisins
User avatar
Shnicky-Poo wrote:
Wow, an American production that throws in the rest of the world as an afterthought (at best)? NO WAI!


I don't have to like it.
oatmeal with raisins
User avatar
Besides, it's supposed to be "The History Channel," not "The US-History-Useful -To-Pro-US-Propaganda Channel."
oatmeal with raisins
User avatar
tiki wrote:
That and I kept thinking "WTF is going to kill off all the people that isn't going to take out the dogs as well."


Disease? If we go via the disease route, at least the housepets will have us to eat before they eventually starve.
user Stupid cockwomble
User avatar
Even though the guy had written a book on it, it looked to me like another History/Discovery channel disaster show. I recorded it, then deleted it without watching it because I needed to room for (A) Daily Show and House.
Subsequent topic  /  Preceding topic
Post Reply

"Life after people" on the History Channel