Slashdot Mirror
How Will Animals Look 250 Million Years From Now?
angkor writes "'How will Earth look 5 million, 100 million, even 200 million years from now?' Fantasic and fun speculation from Animal Planet. It's the work of Dougal Adams, who started this idea years ago in the out-of-print After Man: A Zoology of the Future."
I bet they'll still be good eatin'! :}
====
Crudely Drawn Games
Apparently in 5 million years the earth will be people-less and in an ice-age covering most of Europe.
;)
I am still a staunch believer in the fact that "global warming" is something that the Earth will fix on it's own.
Whether or not we are part of that process is of no concesquence.
Animal Planet agrees!
I do think he got carried away with the carnivorous monkeys and all that, but it was still an interesting exploration.
Super ninja monkeys will one day rule the world!
Like this...
I saw it last night and I have to say that any scientist willing to describe down to the size and weight of an animal 250 million years from now must be smoking something good... It is full of decent CG, some of it's almost worth dealing with the over sensationalization all this 'science' has attached to it. anyone else tired of hearing "the most extreme" attached to whatever they're talking about?
--- eman I don't know what it does, but I like the blinking lights.
As for animals, they will be genetically developed to grow human faces and replacement butts. We're already growing human ears on rats, so you just know we're going to be growing full blown cosmetic replacements for every starlet in Hollywood.
Sex - Find It
I was sort of expecting them to examine several possibilities for future evolution. Sort of like "This could happen, but this could also happen." Unfortunately, there was none of that. They only had one 'possible' evolution and I was actually somewhat disappointed in the one they presented. It seemed to involve too many squid derivatives, including two land squids. Their explanation how they can be land animals without a skeleton was kind of sketchy, in my opinion.
It also seemed to think that the same Classes (Amphibian, Fish, etc) would exist 200 million years from now, which seems a bit off.
Also, the show was filled with horrible names (like the Flish and the Terrabyte).
I also disliked the concept that most animals will get bigger. That seems contrary to what we've observed in the last million years. Animals like Sharks and Alligators have survived millenia without many changes. What makes one think the radical changes proposed in the program would occur?
Funny thing is that I had my nephew (11 years old) watching the program with me. He laughed most of the time and thought the ideas were mostly ludicrous. And see, he's 11...
Also, the platypus evolves to look like a perfectly normal duck.
---- El diablo esta en mis pantalones! Mire, mire!
Life starts in the sea, life emerges from the sea, animals grow really big and most life is reptilian, animals get smaller and become mostly mammals... and thats the story up until now.
Animal planet is proposing that animals get bigger, turn into reptiles, and finally go back into the sea from wence they came. IS it just me or is that somehow ironic, stange and possibly WRONG.
I find it hard to believe that life on earth will DE-evolve... thats sort of a depressing thought though isn't it.
Course what do I know... I'm not a biologist.
"Entropy is the bad-guy, and he is everywhere"
a much more relevant question:
will humanity survive another 10,000 years?
i think not.
I don't ever recall them speaking about dolphins in any respect. Dolphins are believed to be very intelligent (perhaps as intelligent as us). Their intelligence seems to make them a likely candidate for the next civilization, yet there is no mention of them.
...penguins will be able to actually sit down.
I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
We are not talking about predicting what kinds of particles will pop out of a high-energy collision of heavy ions, we are talking about what life will look like in 200 million years. The former is good science, the latter is not. Did anyone notice that the DC's productions on Neanderthals, Dinosaurs, and Prehistoric Beasts were full of the exact same type of pseudoscience speculation? Worst of all, they had the animals doing such things as looking at the camera repeatedly, and even spitting out water towards the TV screen!!! I mean, come on! This makes for great ratings (maybe), but pisspoor science, AFAIAC. They had the Neanderthals going around stealing women and raping them without a shred of evidence that such things occurred, save that in our modern human society they do. Baboons that make fish nets? It seems that there is an overanthromorphization of just about every creature that is CG-rendered by these programs.
Please, when you watch these programs, don't be afraid to enjoy them- but make sure you take them with a grain of salt. To a certain extent, I believe that these programs work against getting the American public to accept evolution as scientists do, instead encouraging misconceptions about basic principles of evolution, as well as providing fodder to anti-evolutionists. Hopefully, in the future, these will be done a bit more professionaly, with less emphasis on the art, and more on the science.
I know that animals on this planet have a 40 million year shelf life with very few exceptions (crocs, cock roaches, turtles etc..).
After the last E.L.E. that killed off all the dinosaurs the animals that survived tended to shrink in size because of the lack of food. Cock roaches used to be quite large, something the size of say a football. Crocodiles were enormous and so were sea turtles. But since the larger animals require more food, evolution kicked in and the species naturally shrunk for survival.
Considering the abundance of life on this planet and likewise food. It seems reasonable that species will continue to grow larger, that is unless insects take over which is quite possible considering they out number us greatly and carry some really nasty diseases.
Humankinds downfall wont be global warming or nuclear war. We will be killed off by the only thing that is higher on the food chain than us, virii. We still can't cure virii, not even the common flu has a cure, and given it's yearly mutation (evolution) there is virtually no hope of curing viruses. We can postpone but not stop them i.e. AIDS. Biowarfare is happening today, but not from Iraq, mother nature has found our supierior.
We may develop the technology to fight off the bugs, but thats a long shot and could be worse than the buggers themselves. Time will only tell.
Aditionally, someone correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the moon supposed to leave our orbit in the next 60 thousand years? It's orbit is degenerating at a certain rate, meaning it will eventually leave us altogether. What impact will this have on life here? The moon is responsible for the tides correct?
"And this will be offtopic, but I also believe there is life on this planet that probably came from others. So with that all said, I don't belive there will be much on this earth that hasn't had a similar clone way back in the past."
Great, now slashdot is being invaded by Raelians. Fuck this, I'm outta here.
Only 200 years it takes for death to die.
mahlen
Having said that, consider what organisms have been around for the previous 250 million years, and why:
Tube worms, mosquitos, reptiles, dragonflies, and my faves, the octopus and cockroach, to name but a few.
That's how animals will look 250 million years from now.
I totally disagree with your idea that man will be killed off by viruses. At the pace medical technology is advancing today, we will be able to cure any virus-borne disease in no more than one hundred years. If all else fails, we can just use nanomachine virus death squads. Unless mankind loses all of their technology somehow, there is no chance of us being exterminated by a virus. And I can't think of a single feasible way, short of alien invasion, that that could happen. Even global thermonuclear war followed by nuclear winter wouldn't do it: there would be pockets of technology and knowledge held by the (many millions of) survivors.
And it's not like there are, or can be, incredibly deadly viruses. The worst in the world (arguably) is AIDs, and it is hardly threatening mankind's survival. Far less than one percent are infected and even fewer die from it. Furthermore, no virus will survive if it is really good at killing. Viruses exist not to kill, as you seem to imply, but rather to propagate. Evolutionarily, a virus wants to hurt its host as little as possible. A virus that kills its host super-fast would burn itself out. Why do you think smallpox was so easy to eradicate? It was one of the most deadly viruses known to man, yet it was one of the easiest to kill off. Same with Ebola: it is incredibly lethal and contagious, yet far fewer than one hundred people die from it a year.
In fact, there's no reason at all that man will ever become extinct. We will eventually colonize other planets and galaxies, exponentially reducing any threat to the species. Our technology will speed evolution up a million fold, eventually making humans effectively immortal. Nothing short of a Borg-like sentient race hell-bent on our destruction (or a planet-killing disaster in the next few hundred years) could kill us off. Sorry, universe, you're stuck with us.
I think the real question is what will we look like in 100 years? Assuming we are able to ride the accelerating technological curve into utopia instead of oblivion, in less than 100 years we are likely going to gain the ability to morph into almost any imaginable shape and/or becoming uploads traversing the universe.
Planet P Blog - Liberty with Technology.
www.enthea.org
I bet they say that there will still be sharks waaaaaayy into the future. After all, what would Animal Planet be without sharks?
-- Cheers!
That Darwin's theory explains why things are the way they are, with regards to survival, it doesn't explain the HOW, which is mutation. Mutations occur and natural selection drives the duplication of the mutated genes 'til a new species is differentiated from the old.
However, the nature of how mutations really happen, and how "good" ones that are "prefered" arrive (as we're very keyed in to hating anything "different" ourselves and often shun it in humans or kill it in animals) is what we as humans have not been able to truly see or test. Its hard to test, as mammals have too long a breeding period, and colonial insects (ants and bees) are usually dominated by the queen's genes. Most genes that change behaviours tended to have already been on the planet somewhere, and are only spreading now because we're accidentally spreading them (e.g., "africanized/killer" bees).
The show did a good job of suggesting what natural selection might do, given a set of mutations over X million years to produce said animals, but the fact is that the mutations themselves are what's utterly unpredictable...and truth be told, rather boring by comparison to the end-results we saw.
I consider evolution a fact, but not a law in the Newton/Einstein sense, because evolution can't be used to predict the future with any accuracy since evolution doesn't explain mutations; it only relies on them. It would be like trying to use Einstein to predict something in electrons without the use of calculus.
--
There's more of my commentary on the show in my journal @ slashdot, most of it influenced by talk from the same boards.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
I haven't seen it yet (forgot about it before, VCR set now), but I see a lot of people complaining that their speculations didn't make much sense.
I don't think that's the point. If a show like this can get people to think beyond their own lifespans, to think for even a minute that the planet will be here and building strange and wonderful things not only after they're gone but after their SPECIES is gone, that can't be bad.
I personally can't believe the number of people that I talk to that, when some kind of calamity is talked about, if you say "It may happen in about 1000 years" they say "Well, who the fuck cares then?" - Damn, man, don't you have aspirations for your species?
The number of people living for themselves, and BARELY even for their children let alone their grandchildren, and fuck all the rest is very disturbing to me. If anyone can introduce even a flicker of a long view to them, more power to them.
Interesting observations, but you might consider alternative explanations for the some of the ways things have turned out.
1. In a capitalist, industrialized society, slavery is less than useless. A slave's consumption of goods and services is limited by the resources and desires of his/her owner and with few exceptions--most notably, traficking in women in the southern parts of Eastern Europe--it is pretty much absent from anywhere where there is an industrial base.
2. Sympathy for animals and for one's enemies can be seen as related to the level of material comfort that a society offers.
Contrast the levels of development.
Hunter-gatherer societies often revere their pray in religious rites, while Judaism, Islam and Hinduism have extensive rules governing what animals can be eaten (if any) and how the animal is to be slaughtered, dressed and otherwise prepared if its flesh is to be ritually pure.
The followers of the ancient religions that have survived to the present did not proscribe meat-eating but they did regulate everything that surrounded it--even Hindus can be carnivores.
It is only now, however, that we find ourselves in societies so rich that they give rise to psychologies where people are so filled with sympathy for animals that they adopt that part of foreign religious traditions.
To mail me, remove the 'mailno' from my email addy.
"Yeah. It smells, too..."
The original work was "After Man", "a zoology of the future", by Dougal Dixon, with an introduction by Desmond Morris.
First published in Great Britain by Granada Publishing, 1981.
ISBN 0 586 05750 1
Compare an American chicken to an Italian (or, more generally, western European) chicken and say that again. European chickens are generally scrawny, tough, gamey birds. American chickens are fatter, and more succulent. This is partly because of different farming methods, but also due to the genetics of the different populations.
There are other benefits to selective farm breeding. Farm-raised pigs have sweeter, more pleasant flesh than wild pigs, and are virtually free of Trichinella nematodes. Farm-raised veal results in a meat that is simply unavailable in free-range animals. And, of course, farm-raised seafood is almost universally superior to wild seafood.
I write in my journal
- A focus. While they couldn't give us a mother and cubs, they could've given us the evolutionary equivalent. Take a couple of classes or orders and get us to care what happens to them over then next 200 million years. Introduce the squids early on. The only continuity TFIW had was "location of former cities"
- Drama- rather than suddenly show the last mammal, they should've shown 100 million years of decreasing diversity.
- Digressions. TFIW had few animals per time zone. If TFIW didn't have the computational budget to animate more they at least could have had more still shots. Documentaries tend to be filled with side loops, constantly showing local diversity- while the predator waits, we take five minutes to check out a cute symbiotic relationship, or a flock of colorful birds, or the prey's prey, or a dung beetle (which also is part of my next point...)
- Humor. Let's see some baby spiders falling off the web before going into the extinction of mammals next time.
A few random points relating to other threads in the comments: