What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
189 Comments
- Godlesswanderer, on 10/10/2007, -8/+100Well, the world doesn't fall apart, just the city. The world itself goes back to how it was before we started messing with things.
- DjOverEZ, on 10/10/2007, -3/+84Know what's even worse? A world without hummus. Can you even imagine living without that delicious chickpea delight?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -11/+71Dugg down as inaccurate.
Should be titled, "A Mega-City Without Humans? It All Falls Apart - nixonrichard, on 10/10/2007, -4/+58But who would save all the animals from extinction?
- wetmetalthong, on 10/10/2007, -0/+45Pyramids last thousands of years.
But our steel girders disintegrate in 100-150. - valleyvideo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+42Video's pretty cool. Obviously I'm not hip enough for SciAm's digital newscaster. Does he really add anything that a simple voice-over doesn't?
- jjhat1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+34Direct link: http://www.worldwithoutus.com/
- BuddingMonkey, on 10/10/2007, -1/+34A world without humans would look strangely like "Half Life 2" according to the pictures.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+32Of course it doesnt take an army of slaves decades to build a skyscraper.
- thrallie, on 10/10/2007, -10/+38I don't buy into this humans need to go away thing. We are the dominate species, creating civilization. Do people out there honestly hope we all just die? I am sorry but I value human lives over animals any day. But that doesn't mean we don't take care of animals. We can do lots more to take care of other creatures, stop pollution and climate change. But wanting humans to go away is bleak and depressing.
- Freshjive787, on 10/10/2007, -4/+30so... in a world without humans, the things humans need would slowly fall apart, but how does that hurt other animals?
- Alexa42, on 10/10/2007, -18/+42It looks much nicer
- pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+20who will make the skateboards for dogs to ride around on?
- Cyber_Akuma, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18That's because people keep shooting them so they will explode.
- Eshestun, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18Ohhh, you bastard.
Must find Mediterranean restaraunt and get me some hummus and tabouleh! - ssteeg, on 10/10/2007, -2/+19Hilarious. I'm sure the Statue of Liberty will be intact during the next ice age.
- Jozer99, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15The designers of these plants are pretty paranoid, and "the spontaneous disappearance of every human being on earth" is not nearly the weirdest situations they plan for. As said above, the reactors will switch off if they do not sense that they are being taken care of properly, even in a relatively short period of time (hours or even minutes). After awhile, if the reactor detects any serious problems with itself (i.e. losing computers, building rotting) the nuclear fuel rods will drop down into a "sarcophagus" made of lead and concrete hundreds of feet beneath the earth. The fuel rods will sit there for the rest of eternity, not poisoning anything (unless there are some unlucky microbes that get into the sarcophagus before it closes).
The reason Chernobyl broke down so spectacularly is because the USSR felt their reactors were so good that it was not necessary to have the safety precautions other countries' reactors had (even then). 3 Mile Island happened not because the reactor was unattended, but because the attendants kept the reactor running when it should have shut down (which it tried to do automatically, after warning of a coolant leak). - CannibalTom, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14Forest fires are not necessarily bad. They allow for new growth, and can actually be helpful. Believe it or not, but we actually intentionally start and control forest burns.
- pizzler, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15These pictures are cool.... http://www.worldwithoutus.com/big_slideshow.html
- HunterTV, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16I'm reading this now. It's a solid book, of course it's all speculative even though it's researched. It wanders off on tangents a bit ,but it's an interesting read. What's depressing is all the ***** we'd leave behind that won't go away.
- N3M3515, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15Skynet will live on FOREVER!
- SuperCUBE, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15Fires rage? Uhhh, I heard nothing of the sort.
- xerexes1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12It's a cycle called an ice age, perhaps you've heard of it?
- capiCrimm, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12yeah, you say that now, but wait until the apes come.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13If there were no humans, who would give a ***** if the subway floods?
- ThecNiqueMan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10First image with the red barrel, priceless.
Personally, I've never seen a red barrel. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13Our solar system is an irrelevant speck of dust on the scheme of things. The universe will still survive and function. So enough of the doomsday scenarios, get a life and enjoy it. 100 years of individual human life is inconsequential in relationship to the 10 billion years of solar system life. Find yourself a woman, get laid and learn to cook. The super asteroid can impact any time.
- misconstrued, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11You do realize that the earth has been much warmer in the past, long before our carbon emissions, than it is right now right? I mean, that's not a serious question... Is it?
- Exodust, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12If it weren't for global warming, we wouldn't be alive in the first place my dear watson.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12THEY ICED IT UP! GOD DAMN YOU DAMNED DIRTY APES! DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!!!
- dbldwn, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11If there were no humans, who would care whether nature was pristine?
- betasp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9I admire his ability to think outside the box. What would nature do with Nuclear Reactors? What about all of the chemicals and weapons that would leak into the ground? The article does not seem to be pro or con anything, just an interesting look at what humans have doe to the planet and how the planet might respond without us here.
- zeromancer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9direct-er link: http://www.worldwithoutus.com/did_you_know.html
- Exodust, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11Nuclear reactors have a fail safe mechanism in which a human being has to press a button after every hour or else the reacot would immediately stop. Haven't you read the article?
- Homunculiheaded, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8You'd finally begin to see the global tapenade levels return to their pre-garbanzo numbers.
- jake8689, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8the rats
- DangerMouse9, on 10/10/2007, -1/+84 8 15 16 23 42 or something
- esotericguy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Are you stupid or retarded?
I just can't seem to make up my mind. - gameforge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6It's decaying uranium. What prevents it from reacting is control rods. If the control rods decay before the Uranium does, the reaction starts again. And if I remember correctly, modern reactor control rods use water as a neutron absorber, with older ones using graphite. I'd like to say the uranium would decay before the control rods and thus never spawn a reaction again - but I'll bet it's more complicated than that.
Say the containment housing rots, or something exposes the reactor core to external oxygen. The structure holding the fuel and control rods could begin to oxidize, rot or at least warp. If the control rods aren't located correctly, a very minute reaction could begin occurring. All of the water pumps and valves (cooling system) are still shut down, but a small reaction is taking place.
Having access to fresh oxygen and an uncooled nuclear reaction going on is ingredients for a large, long-lasting fire. Now you have a Chernobyl with no humans to figure out how to cool things off and (sort of) stop the reaction and contain the radiation.
I'm sure that's all a bunch of *****, but really... common sense? Are you a nuclear physicist...? - Durinthal, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7I find another version to be more interesting: http://www.engr.psu.edu/sts/Courses/walton/readings/EotW.html
- dbldwn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Bring on the LHC!!!!!
- Rickler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6The alligators.
- edz0nk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Random humor-ish comments that has little or nothing to do with the original post... on Digg?!?!!
This must be your first visit to the Internets, please refer to Google for a tourist map and general questions. Enjoy your stay. - Jamminn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Good article, good read. Some of the images beared more than a passing resemblance to HL2... Reminds me of Bill Hicks; its not really "save the planet"; its "save the humans." The planet will be just fine.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5It's even still somewhat intact after the big nuclear holocaust that causes apes to evolve into the dominant intelligent species. Just ask Charlton Heston.
- betasp, on 10/10/2007, -11/+16How so? How long do the Nuclear Reactors screw to the land for miles and mles when we are not around to run them? What about the weapon depots that will decay into the soil and ground water? What about everything plastic? What happen to the stuff we left behind. There is no off switch to what we have done to the planet.
- mancat, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Pebble bed reactors are still in an experimental stage and are certainly not the norm.
- Toshibi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Yeah, but even in that novel, a small group wanted to stick around after the fact.
- Mewchu11, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Please reread that comment for common sense. Your asking if something that's not working will start working by slowly falling apart.
- Phyltre, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I see you fail to grasp the concept.
If everything is dead, there's nothing to be depressed. You do realize you just said that animals get depressed about the environment after it kills them, right? -
Show 51 - 100 of 190 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is