Slashdot Mirror


Was There a Civilization On Earth Before Humans? (theatlantic.com)

Adam Frank, writing for The Atlantic: We're used to imagining extinct civilizations in terms of the sunken statues and subterranean ruins. These kinds of artifacts of previous societies are fine if you're only interested in timescales of a few thousands of years. But once you roll the clock back to tens of millions or hundreds of millions of years, things get more complicated.

When it comes to direct evidence of an industrial civilization -- things like cities, factories, and roads -- the geologic record doesn't go back past what's called the Quaternary period 2.6 million years ago. For example, the oldest large-scale stretch of ancient surface lies in the Negev Desert. It's "just" 1.8 million years old -- older surfaces are mostly visible in cross section via something like a cliff face or rock cuts. Go back much farther than the Quaternary and everything has been turned over and crushed to dust.

And, if we're going back this far, we're not talking about human civilizations anymore. Homo sapiens didn't make their appearance on the planet until just 300,000 years or so ago. [...] Given that all direct evidence would be long gone after many millions of years, what kinds of evidence might then still exist? The best way to answer this question is to figure out what evidence we'd leave behind if human civilization collapsed at its current stage of development.
Mr. Frank, along with Gavin Schmidt, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, have published their research on the subject [PDF].

457 comments

  1. Yeah, dinasaurs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    and the Flintstones.

    1. Re:Yeah, dinasaurs by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Funny

      Layers and layers of compressed shoes.

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Yeah, dinasaurs by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      Crab people

    3. Re:Yeah, dinasaurs by the_skywise · · Score: 1

      taste like crab... look like people...

    4. Re:Yeah, dinasaurs by jythie · · Score: 1

      Someone should craft and experiment to determine if shoes can become oil...

    5. Re:Yeah, dinasaurs by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      taste like crab... look like people...

      Nah... Just a race of people who haven't found a cure for crabs.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    6. Re:Yeah, dinasaurs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or turtles

    7. Re: Yeah, dinasaurs by saloomy · · Score: 0

      No, there wasn't. Civilizations change thing perpetually. We were the first to mine coal, drill for oil, extract deposits of rare earths, and precious metals.

      Also, some things shouldn't go missing. Tracks on the moon, orbital satellites, undecomposable manmade polymers and alloys, radioactivity.

      Sorry to ruin a story, but no.

    8. Re: Yeah, dinasaurs by Hognoxious · · Score: 0

      We were the first to mine coal, drill for oil

      Cola and oil might be their waste.

      Also, some things shouldn't go missing. Tracks on the moon, orbital satellites, undecomposable manmade polymers and alloys, radioactivity.

      Perhaps they were just more tidy than us.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    9. Re: Yeah, dinasaurs by bonedonut · · Score: 1

      Haha thatâ(TM)s a pretty absolute answer for not being able to prove it one way or the other.

    10. Re:Yeah, dinasaurs by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Someone should craft and experiment to determine if shoes can become oil...

      I'm guessing nobody got the Douglas Adams reference.

      --
      No sig today...
    11. Re: Yeah, dinasaurs by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Informative

      We were the first to mine coal, drill for oil, extract deposits of rare earths, and precious metals.

      Citation needed.

      Also, some things shouldn't go missing. Tracks on the moon

      Why would they have necessarily gone to the moon, and even more importantly, why would one of our very few manned missions, or other landing craft, have landed in the right place to have seen those tracks? If we're talking about the scale of millions of years, wouldn't an impact on the moon be an obvious candidate for removing evidence?

      orbital satellites

      Satellites in a stable orbit for millions of years? The moon is not in a stable orbit when you're talking about geologic time.

      undecomposable manmade polymers and alloys

      I don't think we've made anything that would be considered "undecomposable" after millions of years. Moreover, even if we could, wouldn't they be buried after millions of years instead of sitting on the surface?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    12. Re:Yeah, dinasaurs by vtcodger · · Score: 2

      I don't think dinosaurs needed shoes. But they did leave footprints here and there. A great many of them actually. Of course, it's conceivable that they heeded their mother's advice rather better than humans do and took their shoes off when they went wading in the Mesozoic mud.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    13. Re: Yeah, dinasaurs by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      I think the footprints on the moon will eventually be buried in fine dust arriving ballistically from space. But it'll take a while. Likewise the high altitude satellites (e.g. geosynchronous) are going to take a loooo...ong time to decay. No one seems to know how long.

      But there's other stuff like dams, canals, roadcuts, railroad cuts. Even though the roadbeds may be gone in a few hundred years, deep straight or gently curved cuts through hard bedrock are pretty distinctive and in many cases may well be distinguishable tens or even hundreds of millions of years from now. And on the smaller scale, things like reinforced concrete are likely to be recognizable many tens of millions of years from now even though it will likely be difficult or impossible to figure out what the structure they were part of looked like.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    14. Re:Yeah, dinasaurs by Known+Nutter · · Score: 1
      --
      Beware of the Leopard.
    15. Re: Yeah, dinasaurs by Oligonicella · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Cola[sp] and oil might be their waste.

      Fundamental misunderstanding of energy consumption and storage, eh?

    16. Re: Yeah, dinasaurs by mikael · · Score: 1

      Mother Nature was the first to create nuclear reactors

      http://www.alamut.com/proj/98/...

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    17. Re: Yeah, dinasaurs by Harvey+Manfrenjenson · · Score: 2

      I don't think we've made anything that would be considered "undecomposable" after millions of years. Moreover, even if we could, wouldn't they be buried after millions of years instead of sitting on the surface?

      We've made cut gemstones. I'm guessing most of these would not decompose even after two million years. (I don't know if or how you could distinguish a diamond that was cut a million years ago from one that was cut a hundred years ago, but still).

      And according to this chart, (https://www.des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/wmb/coastal/trash/documents/marine_debris.pdf) glass bottles take a million years to decompose.

      Also, I don't know if decomposed plastic fully decomposes, even in geologic time. (No, really-- I don't know. Maybe a chemist can weigh in on the subject). Let's assume they don't: that means that a million years from now, there will be a distinct strata of the Earth's crust which is enriched with plastic sediment or microspheres. Geologists, if there are any around, would be able to deduce that our civilization existed from that alone.

    18. Re: Yeah, dinasaurs by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

      Have you seen all those craters on the moon? Tracks won't last forever. Satellites won't stay up for millions of years, and bacteria evolved to eat plastic in less than 50 years. So no, plastics won't last millions of years either.

    19. Re: Yeah, dinasaurs by sg_oneill · · Score: 2

      The big one that's suggested to indecomposable are ceramics and specifically porcelin . There's a joke amongst paleontologists about a future lost human race that digs us up and the only remaining thing are toilets, leading to much confusion and speculation what sort ceremonial roles they , and the giant necklaces found around them (toilet seats? might have had

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    20. Re: Yeah, dinasaurs by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      The moon is not in a stable orbit when you're talking about geologic time.

      Yeah but think how pristine the lunar surface was, and how any debris on or close to the moon will spread. The only garbage on the lunar surface is ours. The moon is a filter which has been capturing and displaying loose items from space close to its orbit as long as it has existed.

      The cleanliness of the moon suggests strongly that nobody was in high Earth orbit before us, either if they were from Earth, or from outside the solar system.

    21. Re: Yeah, dinasaurs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Orbital satellites wouldn't stay in orbit for 2 million years. Sorry to burst your bubble on that one, but their orbit would decay well before then.

    22. Re: Yeah, dinasaurs by careysub · · Score: 1

      Anything cut into bedrock will be around as long as the bedrock is - it has to entirely erode away to make it disappear. Road and railway cuts, by their positioning, are inherently exposed to erosion though through granite you are looking at hundreds of millions of years as you say (the Black Hills stand above the High Plains for this reason). Bit we commonly cut foundations of large buildings into bedrock. Once these building disappear the rectangular holes in bedrock fill with debris, and will get buried under sediment. These can be preserved for extremely long times, even if erosion eventually removes the sediment the original bedrock will then have to erode.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    23. Re: Yeah, dinasaurs by greylion3 · · Score: 1

      We've made cut gemstones. I'm guessing most of these would not decompose even after two million years. (I don't know if or how you could distinguish a diamond that was cut a million years ago from one that was cut a hundred years ago, but still).

      Very interesting thought. It should certainly be possible to distinguish diamonds that were cut in the last 30 years or so: https://www.jewelry-secrets.co...

      Now I'm wondering if diamonds with unknown ID numbers were ever found in mines, and what was done with them.

      --
      Privacy begins with ..
    24. Re: Yeah, dinasaurs by careysub · · Score: 1

      We have direct evidence from a natural experiment here.

      Amber.

      This is a natural polymer that forms by cross-linking of terpenes in tree resin. Being made of biological materials it is far more prone to natural biochemical attack than our synthetics yet we have amber that dates to the Carboniferous Era, 320 million years ago. Modern synthetics are far more resistant to decomposition than amber is.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    25. Re: Yeah, dinasaurs by careysub · · Score: 1

      We have natural polymers - amber - that are 320 million years old. Made of biologically active compounds these are far less resistance to decompostion to modern polymers. Nothing is ever going to eat teflon.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    26. Re: Yeah, dinasaurs by careysub · · Score: 1

      We were the first to mine coal, drill for oil, extract deposits of rare earths, and precious metals.

      Citation needed.

      Consider the well known fact (to any one with any familiarity with the history of mining) that the grades of major ores that are being mined have steadily declined as the richer ores are exhausted.

      When humans started working metals started very rich sources of critical metals, like copper, were available on and near the surface of the Earth.

      Consider the Old Copper Complex

      in Michigan. This is a rich vein of copper ore called the Keweenaw copper that dates from the Precambrian era 600 million years ago, about the time of the first multi-cellular life. Rich high veins of critical scarce materials did not get exploited until people showed up.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    27. Re:Yeah, dinasaurs by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      landfills, pure metals, plastics.

    28. Re: Yeah, dinasaurs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fundamental inability to grok sarcasm, eh?

    29. Re: Yeah, dinasaurs by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      that means that a million years from now, there will be a distinct strata of the Earth's crust which is enriched with plastic sediment or microspheres.

      Maybe, assuming that the plastic-eating bacteria and enzymes don't take care of it before it gets locked into rock. If that's 10 million or 100 million years instead of 1 though, then given enough time those broken down microspheres might start to look like natural structures if we were seeing them all over the place. We might not know how they were formed, but if we see them all over the place we might just assume they have a natural formation process.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    30. Re: Yeah, dinasaurs by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Yeah but think how pristine the lunar surface was

      We do not know, today, whether or not the moon is pristine or polluted, frankly. It looks relatively unpolluted, but every impact spreads ejecta all over the surface, and without wind there could be a 1cm layer of dirt covering just about anything and we wouldn't know it was there until we dug it up.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    31. Re: Yeah, dinasaurs by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      This is a rich vein of copper ore called the Keweenaw copper that dates from the Precambrian era 600 million years ago, about the time of the first multi-cellular life.

      OK, but how long has it been near the surface? I'm sure that you're aware that a major new source of rare earths was discovered by Japan in the Pacific. I doubt that deposit has always been underwater, or on the surface of the crust, but that's where it happened to be when we happened to look for it. 10 million years ago that might have been 10 miles below the surface. It should be pretty obvious to anyone who's seen a fossil of sea life on the top of a mountain in Texas or New Mexico that the planetary crust is not a static unchanging thing, so just because there's a vein of copper near the surface in Michigan today, doesn't mean it was easily accessible 10 million years ago.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    32. Re: Yeah, dinasaurs by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      Depends on when you think this supposed pre-human technological civilization occurred. The farther back you suppose, then the more the Earth's surface will have altered.

      The point is that we are now tunneling deep into the Earth, having already exploited rich easy to reach supplies. Sure, over geologic time uplift and erosion change which deposits are near the surface, but whatever collection of ore deposits these may be, once they are gone then tunneling and massive disruption of ancient ore deposits ensue. If there was a prior technological civilization then these deep mines would be in many places. We have yet to find one.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    33. Re: Yeah, dinasaurs by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I don't know why deep mines are a necessary requirement for a civilization. We only have a handful of them, it's not like they're all over the place, and I would expect many of them to be destroyed by geologic or other processes over the next several million years. 10 million years ago it's possible that they would have done the same thing we're doing today, exploiting the easy surface deposits. Maybe they never made it beyond that. Regardless, we've explored a fraction of a fraction of the planet below the surface, there's no way anyone can say for certain that something is not down there somewhere.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    34. Re: Yeah, dinasaurs by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Very interesting thought. It should certainly be possible to distinguish diamonds that were cut in the last 30 years or so:

      That'll not survive longer than the script used. whether the ID numbers are recognisable as numbers, ID or otherwise, rather depends on the script still being in use, and the database still existing.

      What would probably last longer are the tooling marks on the various cut and polished surfaces of the diamond. The techniques have changed a lot over the last few centuries with rotating laps (producing slightly-curved, concentric tool marks) replacing hand tools (irregular directions and non-flat surfaces) around the start of the 18th century. Around the end of the 19th century the abrasives changed from natural emery (magnetite-corundum mixture) to artificial SiC and BC with more consistent grain sizes and hardnesses - that will change the structure of the tooling marks.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    35. Re: Yeah, dinasaurs by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      Yeah but think how pristine the lunar surface was, and how any debris on or close to the moon will spread. The only garbage on the lunar surface is ours. The moon is a filter which has been capturing and displaying loose items from space close to its orbit as long as it has existed.

      The cleanliness of the moon suggests strongly that nobody was in high Earth orbit before us, either if they were from Earth, or from outside the solar system.

      Just how much of the lunar surface do you think we have surveyed? Let me clue you in a bit.. 12 men... TWELVE.. have landed on the moon.. How much of the moon do you suspect they closely looked at? Even with the rover, maybe a square mile? Ten square miles?

      Besides, anything up there for very long is going to be covered in whatever dust is ejected by meteorite impacts.. Over a million years.. or 10 million years.. that's a lot of impacts..

      The moon's surface area is about 14.6 million square miles (38 million square kilometers)

    36. Re: Yeah, dinasaurs by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Yeah but the parts which were surveyed were absolutely pristine. Its just rock and dust. The material returned was examined in depth. If metallic or plastic components had been left on or crashed into the moon in the distant past, there would be fragments gardened into the surface. Its a bit like how Roman lead smelting can be detected in Antarctic ice cores, and how every beach on our planet had crap from ships scattered on it.

      There is nothing like that on the moon and I just think we were the first to get there and the first to fly around our solar system.

    37. Re: Yeah, dinasaurs by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      well who says they were into industry ? if they didnt leave a footprint maybe they evolved in harmony and had only biodegradable bio-tech, houses that grow from genetically modified seedlings into huge trees with chambers, living furniture ... its life, Jim, but not as we know it, i'm always aghast at the ability of scientists to be homo-centric even after galileo

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
    38. Re: Yeah, dinasaurs by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I agree, there are too many comments along the lines of "we've done this, and we haven't seen it, so therefore no civilizations are here." Like porcelain, for example. Apparently porcelain is a necessary requirement of a sufficiently advanced civilization, and we would detect it because of so and so, and we haven't, therefore we're the first civilization. Or plastic. Or very deep mines.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    39. Re: Yeah, dinasaurs by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      There is no atmosphere to carry anything around, there could be 20 feet of dust covering anything.. We've only been there a half dozen times.. I highly doubt we know how fast dust accumulates on the moon, and if we have an idea, it's only over the last 40 years.. We have no idea how fast it accumulated 100 million years ago.

      Look, I don't think there were civs before us, but it's certainly a fun thought experiment. I'm simply shocked by how many people discount it out-of-hand with absolutely ludicrous arguments (not including you in that statement).. But simply think about it.. 100 or 200 or 300 million years is a LOOOOOOONG time for evidence of anything to be buried.

  2. No (evidence: coal is still there) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Short answer? No. Not on any scale like our current civilization.

    Evidence: the coal is still here for us to burn. :P And there's no plastic in lake and sea sediments. :P

    1. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by DavenH · · Score: 2

      Plastic wouldn't stick around for eons when bacteria are quickly evolving to eat it up. But where is the space-junk?

    2. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by jwhyche · · Score: 5, Informative

      But where is the space-junk?

      You are assuming they existed long enough to reach a space age. They may have just reached the age of steam then collapsed. The fact they they failed to do something about the incoming asteroid would support this clam.

      There is another answer too. If they did reach the space age they might have simply been more tidy about space than we are. Plus a 70+ million years is plenty of time for all orbital space junk to fall back to earth.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    3. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are assuming they existed long enough to reach a space age. They may have just reached the age of steam then collapsed. The fact they they failed to do something about the incoming asteroid would support this clam.

      People are speculating a most likely range of a couple of tens-of-millions years. That would be after the Asteroid.

    4. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by war4peace · · Score: 1

      According to some research, certain types of plastic could last for as long as 50 million years..

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    5. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by Nidi62 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      But where is the space-junk?

      You are assuming they existed long enough to reach a space age. They may have just reached the age of steam then collapsed. The fact they they failed to do something about the incoming asteroid would support this clam.

      There is another answer too. If they did reach the space age they might have simply been more tidy about space than we are. Plus a 70+ million years is plenty of time for all orbital space junk to fall back to earth.

      Maybe they made it off this rock and we are the descendants of some pets that got left behind to run wild.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    6. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      According to some research, certain types of plastic could last for as long as 50 million years..

      They should charge extra for that.

    7. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      " The fact they they failed to do something about the incoming asteroid"

      ROFL. What could WE do about it?

      " would support this clam. "

      While delicious, I fail to see the relevance.

    8. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by Narcocide · · Score: 2

      Maybe they made it off this rock and we are the descendants of some pets that got left behind to run wild.

      Interestingly enough, this roughly correlates with ancient Sumerian "mythology."

    9. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We already had a steam age around 100 BC.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      But people that time had no idea what to do with them, they used them for "spectacular tricks" like "magically" opening huge doors of temples.

      If we once had another civilization (there are plenty of plausible reasons, which I will explain in another post) then two thinks are most important to consider:
      a) coverage of the ground with dust. The city Troy has about 9 layers of destroyed buildings and rebuild buildings on top of it. And that is a town just 5000 years old. When it was found it was more or less unrecognizable covered under earth.
      b) Considering the last "ice age", sea levels where some 120m lower than now. E.g. Australia was nearly connected with Asia via a land bridge. A civilized nation most likely would have many cities at the coast. Today that would be hundreds if not thousands of miles away from the coast line. In water depths of about 120+ meters. And obviously, depending of about what time frame we are talking, last "ice age", or 6 "ice ages" ago, those areas would be covered with perhaps a mile of mud.

      No one is searching dozens or hundreds or thousands of kilometers out in the sea in depths around 150m - 60m under a mile or hundred meters of sludge. If you would try to get funding for something like this people would declare you mad. Anyway, if another Schliemann shows up and gets enough funding I could imagine we find something (note: I said imagine, not that I'm convinced or believe there is something)

      Here, two nice pictures about coast lines and sea levels: https://www.iceagenow.com/Sea_... Note Japan, Indonesia, North America and Europe, the land bridge closing Spain with north Africa. The second picture has the outline of the coast lines during the last "ice age" as a grey frame around the green land masses.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    10. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      " would support this clam. "

      While delicious, I fail to see the relevance.

      Hmm, while I don't know that I'd go as far as to promote the "flavor" or smell....the bearded variety are QUITE fun to play with....

      Except their mandatory attached life support units can prove to be troublesome and quickly become not worth the effort.

      I highly recommend changing clams often swapping them out before they go bad.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    11. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by sdinfoserv · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, but simple things like glass from a leaded glass window would survive. As a matter of fact ALL our resources that we extract from the ground were intact when we started mining them. So unless all they used was trees and grass, we are the only advanced society.

    12. Re: No (evidence: coal is still there) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you read tfa you will see that the fall of the previous civilization provides the carbon

    13. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we once had another civilization (there are plenty of plausible reasons, which I will explain in another post) then two thinks are most important to consider:

      Correction: You meant to say thoughts. Think is not a noun; it is a verb.

      More than likely meant as "things", noting the a) and b) listed after, but good try.

    14. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Destroying non-renewable resources is pretty perverse definition of advanced.

    15. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by Immerman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why would you assume space junk would stay up for many millions of years? Anything remotely close to Earth would have long since deorbitted due to atmospheric and/or magnetic drag. Even out near geostationary, millions of years of perturbations by the moon's gravity and solar wind could easily have destabilized the orbits.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    16. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by hey! · · Score: 1

      Coal mining before the Industrial Revolution was a very minor affair, and most civilizations never did it. Not Egypt, Kush, Babylonia, Persia or India for example. None of these civilizations left plastic remains.

      The ancient Chinese and Romans did seek out and exploit coal, but they did not manage deplete reserves in any of their territories.

      You're assuming "civilization" looks like 20th Century civilization. In fact it could look very different. But it raises a good question: what, exactly, is a "civilization".

      It turns out the thing that distinguishes a civilization from other kinds of societies in the minds of people who think about these thing is this: social stratification. In a civilization, most people have to work for someone else.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    17. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      " The fact they they failed to do something about the incoming asteroid"

      ROFL. What could WE do about it?

      With enough lead time, we could do plenty. The Chicxulub asteroid was about 10 km in diameter, or about 500 cubic km, and had a mass of a few trillion tonnes. We have surveyed earth crossing asteroids of that size pretty well, and would have months or even years of lead time. A series of nukes could easily knock it off course by a fraction of a degree, which would be enough to miss the earth a few months later.

      Space launches take a long time, and a lot of planning and testing, but that is because of all the bureaucracy, safety concerns, and cost controls. All that would be gone if our survival were at stake. Multiple projects would run in parallel with nearly unlimited budgets.

    18. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by Immerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Glass rarely survives intact after even a century of neglect. After millions of years of earthquakes, hailstorms, wild-fires, hurricanes,etc,etc,etc - how would you recognize leaded sand in amongst all the other grains? Metals rust, plastics degrade. Hard stone is about the only thing we could reasonably expect to survive intact.

      Mining tunnels would probably be one of the few things we could reasonably expect to find evidence of - and you'd have to be looking really hard to recognize the telltale geologic anomalies distinguishing a tunnel that collapsed millions of years ago.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    19. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, but where are those bacteria?

    20. Re: No (evidence: coal is still there) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nudge nudge

    21. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by sgage · · Score: 1

      Please do not refer to my glorious, lush, verdant, biologically diverse home planet as "this rock".

      Thank you.

    22. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You look at it the wrong way. Dinosaur eggs can hardly survive millions of years, and most didn't. But some did, and their fossilized remains have been found. Yes, lots of things will not survive, but there are ways for things to survive, and some inevitably will.

    23. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      All that would be gone if our survival were at stake. Multiple projects would run in parallel with nearly unlimited budgets.

      One would hope.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    24. Re: No (evidence: coal is still there) by bonedonut · · Score: 1

      Because it turned back into oil. All those oil deposits? Ancient garbage dumps.

    25. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Given the mass of the Earth and the amount of that mass existing as those items you listed, it's more of a rock than anything else. A giant, spinning, rock with a hot melted rock around a giant ball of metal.

      it's like the bacteria living on your skin being insulted you're ignoring them in favor the Human body they're living upon.

    26. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it raises a good question: what, exactly, is a "civilization"

      Culture is making a nice drinking bowl out of your enemy's skull. Civilization is sending someone to prison for it.

    27. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by youngone · · Score: 2

      If a civilization of intelligent, tool making dinosaurs evolved over 2 or 3 million years starting something like 113 million years ago we might have no way of ever finding their remains.
      110 million years ago a dinosaur species with opposable thumbs and binocular vision begins to make stone tools.
      109.5 million years ago discover agriculture
      109.4 million years ago extensive city building, beginnings of metal use.
      109.3 million years ago civilization wiped out due to climate change, or war, or any number of possible calamities.
      If this took place on what is now Antarctica anything that remained might be under 2 kilometres of ice, so hard to find.
      I know its just speculation, but the list above seems possible to me.

    28. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by Hartree · · Score: 2

      Advanced civilisation is curing the Kuru you get from a bowl made from a poorly cleaned out enemy's skull. (We ain't there yet)

    29. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anyone know if the take continental drift into account in those maps? I would think the Atlantic would be even narrower, but perhaps not.

    30. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Culture is making a nice drinking bowl out of your enemy's skull. Civilization is sending someone to prison for it.

      More like
      "Culture is making a nice drinking bowl out of your enemy's skull. Civilization is paying Damien Hurst to make it for you."

    31. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by slew · · Score: 2

      Budget implies a consequence for spending money and money is predicated on future exchange.

      1. There is no budget if there are no consequences for overspending
      2. Nobody is going to accept money for work if they knew the end of the world was coming for sure.

      So, I suspect the most likely outcome is to keep everything secret which makes it unlikely there will be lots of projects running in parallel because "Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead."

      Once the cat is out of the bag, throwing more money at people won't convince the holdouts to do the things required for have a shot at survival, you will likely need guns...

    32. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you would try to get funding for something like this people would declare you mad.

      If you want to put up a Kickstarter, I'll chip in $20.

    33. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by vtcodger · · Score: 2

      "Plastic wouldn't stick around for eons when bacteria are quickly evolving to eat it up."

      Plastic is a lot less biodegradable than wood and there is plenty of fossil wood -- some as old as Devonian (380 Million years ago--give or take) if you take the trouble to look for it along ancient-sea margins and in ancient lakebeds. Even if the plastic eating bacteria are efficient and anaerobic, any plastic objects entombed in mud would likely leave distinctive molds in the sediment.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    34. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by vtcodger · · Score: 2

      "A series of nukes could easily knock it off course by a fraction of a degree, which would be enough to miss the earth a few months later."

      And if you manage to steer what was going to be a near miss into a collision?

      You're gonna get sued.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    35. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we're presuming they could get to space as we have then its reasonable to assume they left something on the moon we could still find.

    36. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by jwhyche · · Score: 4, Informative

      There would be no secrecy. You maybe able to keep government source like NASA silent. You would still have to deal with all the university astronomy projects. But lets say you managed to keep the university programs secret, then you need to deal with the hundreds of thousands of amateur astronomers.

      An these are only U.S. based projects. There are still 200 countries in the world, most with their own astronomy programs. You are not going to keep a extinction level asteroid secret for long.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    37. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by Oligonicella · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Glass rarely survives intact after even a century of neglect.

      Abuse, yes. Neglect, no. We have glass artifacts in perfect condition from the Mesopotamians (1500BC/3500yr). Glass is just a form of stone you know. And, if by "rarely survives intact" you mean down to unrecognizable as manufactured, then you're much, much more incorrect.

    38. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'll make great pets!

      Porno for Pyros "Pets" music video

    39. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well you would expect to find worked diamond etc - gold not so much would have been recycled.

    40. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Not much drift over 10,000 odd years. Perhaps a couple of dozen miles?

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    41. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Throw in the fact that some animals are tied to a particular habitat, which may be relatively small.
      Antarctica as you mentioned, or somewhere that got subducted back into the mantle or even as someone else mentioned, shoreline that is now under water.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    42. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      And if you manage to steer what was going to be a near miss into a collision?

      You're gonna get sued.

      That makes no sense. If it was on a trajectory that would miss, we would just do nothing and let it miss.

      Or are you suggesting that we aren't quite sure how to calculate trajectories? Why would you believe that?

    43. Re: No (evidence: coal is still there) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A series of nukes could easily knock it off course by a

      No.
      That's not how explosions in space work. It'd be a huge waste of effort against anything solid enough to pose a hazard.
      You'd be better off just ramming a bunch of mass into it.

    44. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interestingly, you are entirely incorrect. Every inch of the outer continental shelf of the USA has been the subject of archaeological surveys, as required by the BOEM for oil leases.

      Find the requirements here:
      >

      You will see that every 3 square mile lease offshore has been scanned by shallow acoustic surveys and discoveries of fossil forests, early hunter-gatherer camps, and other features have been duly reported to the US government. Lots of interesting things down there, but no buried cities, flying saucers, or xenomorph pyramids....

    45. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      2. Nobody is going to accept money for work if they knew the end of the world was coming for sure.

      1. The whole point of the work is to AVOID the end of the world.
      2. What are they going to do instead? Take their family to the beach?
      3. When facing near certain death, people are more likely to cooperate and work together, than to panic. Look at cities under siege, trapped miners, ships trapped in ice flows, Apollo 13, Flight 93, etc.

      most likely outcome is to keep everything secret

      No way. It would be impossible, but also stupid. Millions of people in critical industries would need to shift to 80 or 100 hour work weeks. That isn't going to happen if they don't know why.

    46. Re: No (evidence: coal is still there) by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      You'd be better off just ramming a bunch of mass into it.

      Nonsense. A standard American W78 warhead has a mass of ~ 350 kg and a blast of ~ 320 kT, or 1.5e18 joules. The same mass with a delta-V of 10000 m/s, used as a ram, would deliver 1.75e10 joules. So an explosion would deliver 10 million times as much energy, and eject far more inertial mass from the surface of the asteroid.

    47. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about man!?!
      I randomly found pottery from 2000 years ago in Israel, if found glass from an a old trash heap from the ca gold rush. If it’s not reactive it can last for a looooong time under minimal cover.

    48. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by Darkling-MHCN · · Score: 1

      You didn't read the paper.

      And you probably won't read this either. Anyhow here's a key quote from the PDF which totally refutes your statement

      An intriguing hypothesis presents itself should any of the initial releases of light carbon described above indeed be related to a prior industrial civilization. As discussed in section 3.3, these releases often triggered episodes of ocean anoxia (via increased nutrient supply) causing a massive burial of organic matter, which eventually became source strata for further fossil fuels. Thus the prior industrial activity would have actually given rise to the potential for future industry via their own demise.

    49. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One word: V'ger.

    50. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by Immerman · · Score: 1

      2000 years is not a long time on the scales we're talking.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    51. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Agreed - but "moon junk" is no more "space junk" than "Earth junk" is. Maybe we'll find it once we're established on the moon, but not before.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    52. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by Immerman · · Score: 1

      True. But if you fracture a rock containing a fossil, the fracture will tend to travel around the outside of it, leaving the fossil and its impression as two pieces, which makes them easy to find anyplace rock crumbles. If you fracture a rock containing a glass inclusion, the glass is likely to be fractured as well - just another glassy inclusion unless the glass is clear enough and the break clean enough to let you see through to the surface.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    53. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Yep, a brittle, non-crystaline stone very likely to be broken or deformed beyond recognition as the ground around it gets remade by geologic forces.

      Here's a sample of glass plates from a paltry 2200 years ago - now, imagine what it would look like after enduring 10,000x as much damage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      You might be able to recognize it as an artifact - but probably not unless you were actually expecting to find one.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    54. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      No simpler answer to the question than this. Rusty iron, preserved for aeons, not a problem at all. Sure the iron won't be there, but the rust will and in concentrations that would be wildly abnormal. Sure ice age settlements have been buried beneath the seas, after having been crushed and ground in the surf zone as sea level rose. Of course rapid rise, caused by periodic significant methane events, would help bury and preserve artefacts below rapid sedimentary discharge, but no real effort to plot ice age river mouths and core sample down current sediments, this more for timber and clay societies.

      No examples of clustered rust deposits preserved by normal fossil style replacement of original material, covered over by different sedimentary material and they would have to be quite substantive and could not be missed. Simple reality, the earth remained primitive until such time a cyclic climate change game preference to mental evolution over physical evolution. The ability to wear the fur of animals who struggle to physically evolve to climate change occurring over tens of thousands of years and of course the ability to barbecue them animals over a fire, this allowed enduring dominance over any locale, regardless of climate change, that just resulted in change of diet.

      River mouths are still the best bet to find, early man, barring cyclic ice ages over the past couple of millions of years, likely caused by an orbiting debris cloud from a major impact. Fresh water, fresh water prey and vegetation, salt water prey and vegetation and the surrounding country side, and of course boats far easier to master than a animal drawn carriage.

      For intellectual evolution to take precedence over physical evolution, there must be repeated short term cycles, relatively speaking, that give preference to mental adaptability over physical evolution, that initial kick. We are an ice age species, not a non-ice age species, the bulk of time we developed was during ice ages, not periods like the current warm period. It brought us into being and then periodically kicked our societal arses upon a regular basis. Not so much the ice age or the warm period but the transitional period from one to the other. No society can resist a 120 odd metre change in sea level, especially not a coastal society, periods of which were way faster than measured in centuries.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    55. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

      According to other research, they won't.

    56. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Glass rarely survives intact after even a century of neglect.

      There is a museum full of midden heap excavations near my home in Trier. Notably, it is full of Roman glass and Celtic ceramics.

      > Hard stone is about the only thing we could reasonably expect to survive intact.

      And early civilizations use a fuck ton of carved stone. However, I think this would be less recognizable than other bits of durable civilized creation. The frescos on the Igel tower are barely recognizable, for example.

      We have examples of soft tissue from dinosaurs. Petrified forests. I find your claim that _none_ of the more durable aspects of civilization would survive unbelievable. Glass concrete, worked gold, clumps of non-naturally occurring alloys... and yet we've located dinosaur skin. Riiiight.

    57. Re: No (evidence: coal is still there) by djinn6 · · Score: 1
      Maybe nukes are the way to go, but your calculations aren't very convincing.

      A standard American W78 warhead has a mass of ~ 350 kg and a blast of ~ 320 kT, or 1.5e18 joules.

      That's 1.3e15 Joules.

      The same mass with a delta-V of 10000 m/s, used as a ram, would deliver 1.75e10 joules.

      New Horizons was 16.6 km/s and 480 kg. Why would we do worse than that with the entire world on the line? The asteroid will be moving too, so impact velocity will be much higher.

      So an explosion would deliver 10 million times as much energy, and eject far more inertial mass from the surface of the asteroid.

      20 thousand times. Also, the calculation that matters is momentum, not energy. You're trying to move the asteroid, not vaporize the whole thing.

    58. Re: No (evidence: coal is still there) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kay, but that asteroid could be some 10km long, going at least a few dozen kilometers per second. You're not going to vaporize anything that large, and the bulk of the mass will keep going on mostly the same heading. Also, comparing on the basis of equal mass is disingenuous. This whole thread could probably be avoided if all participants instead read this article. Better minds than ours have already seen to this one.

    59. Re: No (evidence: coal is still there) by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      That's 1.3e15 Joules.

      You are correct. I goofed and included the "kilo" twice.

      New Horizons was 16.6 km/s and 480 kg. Why would we do worse than that with the entire world on the line?

      New Horizons did multiple slingshots on the way to Pluto. For a near-earth asteroid we will have neither the time nor the plants for that (maybe the moon, but that isn't moving fast relative to the earth).

      Also, as you say, it is momentum that matters, not energy, so it is better to send a bigger mass rather than moving a smaller mass faster . ... in which case why not make the mass some extra lithium deuteride and get a way bigger explosion? Anything that will help you deliver a bigger ram mass can instead help you deliver a bigger nuke.

      The asteroid will be moving too, so impact velocity will be much higher.

      True, but also true of the nuke. If the detonation is directly in front of the asteroid, slightly over half of the mass of the nuke will hit the asteroid, and at a far higher velocity. The delta-V will be added to the momentum ... and the square of the delta-v will be added to the shock wave that ejects inertial mass from the surface of the asteroid.

    60. Re: No (evidence: coal is still there) by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      bulk of the mass will keep going on mostly the same heading.

      If it is moving relative to the earth at, say, 10000 m/s, and we nuke it 3 months before impact, then it will travel 78 million kilometers before missing or hitting the earth. The radius of the earth is about 6000 km. So a deflection of 0.004 degrees is enough to change a dead-center hit into a miss.

    61. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by anonymous+cupboard · · Score: 1

      What about big lumps of finished ceramic like toilets, bidets or washbasins? Like glass, they can be broken, but they tend to be pretty tough and break into recognizable shards. Pots can already last over a thousand years, but they tend to be quite thin. However, a big lump should be much tougher.

    62. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to some research, certain types of plastic could last for as long as 50 million years..

      Are they talking about the card or the credit card bill?

    63. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      You are assuming they existed long enough to reach a space age. They may have just reached the age of steam then collapsed. The fact they they failed to do something about the incoming asteroid would support this clam.

      People are speculating a most likely range of a couple of tens-of-millions years. That would be after the Asteroid.

      yeah but wouldn't stuff but in stable orbits like the L points or whatever and engineered properly basically stay there forever?

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    64. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The authors are talking about civilizations that may have existed more than 1.6 million years ago. The chaos principles in general destroy and distribute built structures such that even the rust fingerprint would be long gone and indistinguishable from background iron.

      So, they're saying that maybe we'd leave behind some traces of our plastics (although in a few million years it would take some analysis to find it) - and perhaps some specific products that could be emitted in a full scale nuclear exchange/war. Other than that - pretty much nothing obvious.

      There would be no pottery (long gone in +millions of years excepting for that which was preserved in tar pits, etc), no buildings (especially concrete which starts to turn to dust in only a few hundred years. That's sometimes why old building need to be torn down, as the concrete softened and loses it structural strength). The steel in the concrete soon gone also. Look at the pictures of Chernobyl - after only 30 odd years, or for that matter downtown Detroit.

    65. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coal would only be dug and burned if all the trees had been used for charcoal first. Petroleum? Megaladon Oil. Precious metals? Dragon hordes. Alternatives abound.

    66. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet, somehow the bones and skin impressions of organic life forms have survived hundreds of millions of years.

      We have fossil evidence going back a billion years demonstrating the progress of evolution along the way. Until humans, nothing was capable of technology and nothing left anything even remotely technological behind, unless you're suggesting bird nests and termite mounds qualify for technology.

      This is the single biggest argument for why there was never a techno-society in the distant past. SOMETHING would have survived. Especially if it was something more durable than bones and skin impressions in the mud.

    67. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      Good point, but a poor choice of material. Coal is a super-abundant resource, even massive ancient exploitation would have left enormous amounts behind. Burning all coal would produce a CO2 level of some 5000 ppm, the highest it has ever been in the past (about 150 million years ago) was half this.

      Much scarcer materials like many metals are much better evidence for no prior exploitation.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    68. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      " The fact they they failed to do something about the incoming asteroid"

      ROFL. What could WE do about it?

      With enough lead time, we could do plenty. The Chicxulub asteroid was about 10 km in diameter, or about 500 cubic km, and had a mass of a few trillion tonnes.

      Quite true. We really don't have to worry about any asteroid on the scale of the KT Killer - we are already tracking all asteroids of this scale that could possibly intersect Earth's orbit.

      Unfortunately about 20% of this threat is from long-period comets which we will only see a couple of years before impact. Remember Hale-Bopp, the great comet of 1997? It was 60-80- km across, or 200 to 500 times more massive than the KT Killer! It was also a "new" comet, making its first approach to the Sun.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    69. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      According to other, other real research plastics can survive for 320 million years. We know because we have samples that old. It is a natural plastic called "amber". We have many synthetic polymers now that are far, far more resistant to deterioration than amber.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    70. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      But lots of glass artifacts would be dropped into contexts were they are efficiently preserved, just like the fossils we find. Indeed just like fossils, we would have many casts of all manner of manufactured articles, it they existed.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    71. Re: No (evidence: coal is still there) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps they should check if that plastic eating bacteria they discovered really did evolve the ability in just 50 years

    72. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'd tend to accept what we saw throughout history as normal, as a civilization coming after ours would accept our trash as normal. "Maybe we should look for evidence of previous civilizations under the plastic layer and not above it." "That's ridiculous. We should be studying whatever creature Bic Lighters were the egg cases of."

    73. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

      It doesn't have to be intact... All we're talking about here is "evidence"... ANY evidence. You don't need the Mona Lisa to prove artists existed, all you need is a hand print in the back of cave.
      Fossilized bones of something intelligent that walked with or prior to dinosaurs (no, the creation museum is invented crap),
      Millions of year old evidence of environmental tampering - remember, we've plundered iron ore to make steel, we've removed mountains for strip mining (ancient meteor strikes are clearly visible from space and some are millions of years old), we've dug tunnels lined with lead and concrete, we've detonated nuclear bombs and detected no explainable radiation prior to us, there are no non-naturally occurring compounds that pre-date us floating in the sea, air or ground. Everything - EVERYTHING fits the story line as we currently know it and dictates we are the first concentrated intelligent species and society on this planet. period.
      If you have evidence, show it. Otherwise it's simply wishful thinking and fantasy.

    74. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      If you fracture a rock containing a glass inclusion, the glass is likely to be fractured as well - just another glassy inclusion unless the glass is clear enough and the break clean enough to let you see through to the surface.

      Hmm, you speak with the conviction that make me think that you've looked at several hundreds of thousands more rock specimens than I have. Or maybe, you've not looked at even a single hundred thousand rock samples (you'd have crossed that measure some time in your second decade in the job)?

      Actually, you get quite good at noticing unusual things after the first couple of years. Or you move into a different job like punching numbers into computers. You recognise them as unusual because the usual things you've written into the "Sample Description" forms so bloody often that the unusual stands out.

      Yes, you do see unusually clear and polished grains occasionally. And you note them, because they're unusual. And you note that they appear and increase and decrease in certain units but not in others, which your seismic stratigraphy associates with one provenance region but not another. Significant and useful data. Evidence of a Pliocene civilisation? No.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    75. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Glass is just a form of stone you know.

      Actually, the chemical and optical properties are quite distinct from almost all natural minerals. (Lechatelierite being an exception.) As you'll remember from the year or so you spent studying mineralogy, in order to speak with such confidence.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    76. Re: No (evidence: coal is still there) by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      How many oil reservoirs have you subjected to hand specimen, whole core, and/ or microscopic examination? Do you really have that much contempt for geologists?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    77. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nearly unlimited

      Unlimited - 1 ? Unlimited * 0.99 ?

      Hell, I'd be happy with just 0.00000000001% of an unlimited budget.

    78. Re:No (evidence: coal is still there) by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

      At least you mentioned one and didn't just throw out 'research shows this but I'm not going to tell you where why how or anything really'. Which was why i originally responded.
      Mine was supposed to be just as meaningless as the parent, you did better than us both :)

  3. One word: Glass by Max+Sinister · · Score: 1

    Glass doesn't rot, doesn't rust...

    1. Re:One word: Glass by DavenH · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So sand is good evidence?

    2. Re:One word: Glass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Given the distribution of 7 billion people currently on the planet, the enormous expanses of the planet surface lightly littered but not inhabited by those 7 billion people, and the general availability of things like toilets, glass, spark plugs and other hard ceramics, I don't think anyone would be lucky enough to find so much as a single bead anywhere on Earth. We haven't had enough time to deposit sufficient trash in the geologic layers to be noticed.

      Proposing that older civilization is at the same level of development as current humans gives us another option. Somewhere, buried on a moon, an asteroid or a planet like Mercury there just might be some scrap of evidence waiting to be found.

      After all, human like to write "killroy was here" on everything we touch so why wouldn't another civilization?

    3. Re:One word: Glass by jwhyche · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Glass doesn't rust but over time environmental forces will turn glass back into its sandy components.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    4. Re:One word: Glass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    5. Re:One word: Glass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Glass doesn't rot, doesn't rust...

      It dissolves.

    6. Re:One word: Glass by Joce640k · · Score: 0

      Glass doesn't rot, doesn't rust...

      You never picked up a smooth, rounded-off piece of glass on a beach?

      --
      No sig today...
    7. Re:One word: Glass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hundreds of them, all at the same time.

    8. Re:One word: Glass by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Sure, if exposed. But glass (and ceramics in general) will certainly be as durable as a dinosaur bone. We should find bits of it safely ensconced in layers of sedimentary rock.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    9. Re:One word: Glass by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Another word: stone. Some stone arrangements would survive millions of years. This flight of fancy rejected by that criterion alone. At least it makes people think.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    10. Re:One word: Glass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't find dinosaur bones, you find mineral substitutions. As glass is a mineral, it wouldn't be distinguishable in many (most?) cases. Ceramics, I'm not sure about. What's the oldest ceramics we know of?

    11. Re:One word: Glass by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      no, if the glaciers didn't scrub them away to be left as bits in the terminal moraines the plate tectonics would crush them

    12. Re:One word: Glass by zenasprime · · Score: 2

      Dinosaur bone fossils are not made out of bone.They are made up of a variety of inorganic minerals through a process called mineralization. They are basically rocks.

    13. Re:One word: Glass by Immerman · · Score: 1

      First it would have to survive long enough without breaking to end up in a deposit of sediment. And then it would have to survive immense the pressures that convert that sediment to stone - which would very likely shatter or deform it beyond recognition.

      Assuming it somehow survived all that, someone would still have to randomly crack open a rock, notice the now-broken glass artifact that was cracked apart, and do more than think it was some sort of unusual natural glass inclusion. After all, fossils are usually a lot harder than the surrounding stone, so fractures will tend to travel around them - glass is brittle enough that the fractures will tend to travel right through it, if not "spider web" it into a lot of pieces.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    14. Re:One word: Glass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sherd

    15. Re:One word: Glass by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Indeed, that does seem like the most likely place to find evidence - probably the Moon since it's close, pretty much geologically inert, and full of useful raw materials. The down side is that the natural place to build is underground, for radiation and impact shielding, which means you'd have to happen across just the right place to have any chance of finding it.

      On the plus side - there's a relatively small set of "prime" spots for a moonbase that have remained so for many millions of years: Peaks of extended sunlight and craters of eternal darkness are both potentially resource-rich locations, and in very short supply. And then there's the spots directly beneath the L1 and L2 points - the only two places you can build a "traditional" space elevator on the moon.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    16. Re:One word: Glass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, if the glaciers didn't scrub them away to be left as bits in the terminal moraines the plate tectonics would crush them

      If that was the case, no fossilized bones would remain either. ;)

    17. Re:One word: Glass by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      Fired ceramics should last functionally indefinitely, if protected from chemical or physical degradation. If fragments were found, the crystalline structure would likely indicate an artificial origin. Given the span of time, it's unlikely that any identifiable pieces would be found- however we would only need to find one piece to have proof.

    18. Re: One word: Glass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so you're saying we should litter more...

    19. Re:One word: Glass by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      as article points out, fossils are actually very rare. most living things don't get to be fossils, and most fossils on surface don't endure.

    20. Re:One word: Glass by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      Certain stone arrangements could survive, but they would still need to have to been built in the right location to not be destroyed or lost beneath a changing coastline. That would pretty much be luck, though. Because there is no particular reason to believe that anyone would build with the relevant parameters in mind.

    21. Re:One word: Glass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Grasping at straws. Literally everything that is chemically inert with itself "should last functionally indefinitely, if protected from chemical or physical degradation."

      If ..likely indicate...unlikely...proof.

      Conditional possibility with a low probability is not proof.

    22. Re:One word: Glass by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      We haven't had enough time to deposit sufficient trash in the geologic layers to be noticed.

      Other than boring gigantic holes through said layers, right?

    23. Re:One word: Glass by Oligonicella · · Score: 2

      Oh please. Name a mineral that in natural deposit has a cup like shape with a manufacturing logo impressed on the bottom? The ends of Coke bottles will last for eons.

      Oldest ceramics? Around 20K years. In other words, as long as we've been making it.

    24. Re:One word: Glass by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      I have. Many of them. Not one was due to rot.

    25. Re:One word: Glass by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      It would not have to petrify - simply survive surrounded by sediment. People don't need to dig a random rock - it can be exposed by weathering. Very delicate seashell fossils wash up all the time on the beach.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    26. Re:One word: Glass by dbreeze · · Score: 1
      --
      When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
    27. Re:One word: Glass by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Agreed, but they had to stay intact long enough to undergo mineralization. If it can happen with relatively soft and delicate organic material, then why not with more durable materials? Another example would be fossilized seashells.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    28. Re:One word: Glass by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      They had to survive long enough to mineralize.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    29. Re:One word: Glass by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Except sediment generally becomes stone over geologic timescales. Those delicate fossils spent a long time embedded in stone before being broken free by weathering.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    30. Re:One word: Glass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, chemical weathering is a real thing, and rocks do not last forever.

    31. Re:One word: Glass by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      Glass doesn't rust but over time environmental forces will turn glass back into its sandy components.

      Which is fine if every single piece of glass left from the theoretical ancient civilisation was left out in the elements. But even dinosaurs found a way to get themselves buried in mud, tar, rock, ash, amber etc...

    32. Re:One word: Glass by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Right, so if a delicate shell can survive this process, why not a robust piece of stoneware, building brick, or glass? At the very least, you'd see the kinds of fossils where just an impression of the original organism survives. Any tool robust enough to work wood or stone would survive. And it's not limited to man-made (well, creature-made) objects. Hewn wood, agricultural activity, or butchered animals would be evident in the fossil record. A garbage pit or excrement pile would provide plenty of potential fossilized material.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    33. Re:One word: Glass by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Certainly artifacts could survive - the problem is that they'd be so distorted by time (think 10,000x the oldest human artifacts), that they probably wouldn't be recognizable as artifacts unless you were specifically looking for them. And even then it'd be iffy. Embed a glass or ceramic shard in sedimentary rock, and it just looks like more rock under casual observation, so you're not going to easily spot samples in the field. And glass especially flows under time, heat, and pressure, so the original shape would quite likely be lost over the course of millions or years.

      Hewn wood would likely degrade to unrecognizability before it fossilized - all the detail that marks it as an artifact would be in the outer surface, which is the most likely to be lost. Plus, the conditions needed to fossilize a tool before it decays are rare enough that most would never make it.

      Agricultural activity, or pretty much any disturbance of the surface, will almost certainly be weathered away completely long before it gets buried, with any remaining traces being distorted beyond recognition under the immense pressures of thousands of meters of sediment above it. And the excretement pile of an intelligent animal looks just like any other.

      Arrowheads and other stone tools would probably be the most plentiful artifacts to find, for the same reason human-made ones are: the materials are durable on geologic time scales, so they'd mostly all still be around, and the stone age probably lasts for a VERY long time, so lots of artifacts accumulate. The hard part of course is spotting and recognizing a stone tool as something different than the rest of the stones around it in the sedimentary rock.

      Really, that's the crux of the problem - not that we couldn't find artifacts if we looked hard enough, but that they'd generally look so much like naturally occurring objects that you could only tell the difference in the lab. And they'd be so uncommon that you'd need to look through literal tons of random samples to have a chance of finding even one.

      If you've ever gone hunting for arrowheads or pottery shards you probably have a taste of the scope of the problem - depending on luck and location it likely takes you somewhere between hours and days to find one. Now imagine that instead of just spotting it against a backdrop of natural stones, you had to take EVERY stone your eyes slid across into the lab for analysis. Even if it only took a second or two per stone it would slow the process down by orders of magnitude.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    34. Re:One word: Glass by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I understand the needle-in-a-haystack thing, but we do a LOT of digging. We dig for ores, we dig for fertilizer, we dig for salt, we dig for energy, we dig for decor, we dig for infrastructure, we dig for energy, we dig for simple knowledge. We regularly take core samples all over the world in all different terrains. In doing so, we've discovered fossils from nearly every period that we think life has existed on Earth, and we've stumbled upon the remains of human and even pre-human cultures. I find it unlikely to the point of absurdity that something as blatant as a plow or a wheel - or yes, an arrowhead - would escape all of that. An engineer taking core samples and finding an arrowhead at the 50 million year mark in the strata would find that very interesting indeed. Even evidence of butchered animals would be quite interesting - and indeed they have fossil evidence of butchering as early as 3.4 million years. I just don't see it as very likely that even a primitive tool-maker would escape notice in the fossil record... but I concede it is likely that small populations may have popped in and out of existence many times without modern-day detection. Just nothing that we would regard as a "civilization".

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    35. Re:One word: Glass by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      no, if the glaciers didn't scrub them away to be left as bits in the terminal moraines the plate tectonics would crush them

      Oh, good point! That must be why there are no fossils.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    36. Re: One word: Glass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gigantic?

    37. Re:One word: Glass by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Except NOTHING made of metal would survive. Probably nothing plastic. Fossilized wood artifacts might - but think of how rare it is for wood to be fossilized, and how much incredibly rarer wood artifacts are than trees.

      And for more fossils, glass and other "stone" artifacts - we may already turn them up on a regular basis - but they're unlikely to be recognized. If you were a construction worker who found a chunk of "modern" ceramic while excavating, would you think "ancient pre-human civilization" or "I wonder how this junk got down here"? As for stone - heck, even if you were an archaeologist that stumbled across a dinosapien arrowhead in good enough shape to still be recognizeably an arrowhead of a totally unique style, would you think dinosapien, or would you think unknown human civilization? Or, in the absence of any others, "somebody must have been getting experimental"

      Plus, if you're an archaeologist you're going to be looking in places where human artifacts are likely to be found, when the world was already much the same as it is today - not places that would have hosted civilizations millions of years older, when rivers, mountains, etc were all different.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    38. Re:One word: Glass by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Ponder this please: how many fossils does one need to find, to find a fossil? Second one: how many fossils are there?

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    39. Re:One word: Glass by Tough+Love · · Score: 1
      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    40. Re:One word: Glass by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      - but they're unlikely to be recognized

      I just don't think that's true. A construction worker? Sure. But the construction, oil, and mining industries all employ geologists who are constantly evaluating sites and taking bore samples. They would absolutely notice something that doesn't belong. An archaeologist finding anything even remotely arrow-head like among older-than-it-should-be strata would absolutely make note of that. And of course we have loads of people looking for prehistoric animals of just about every age - they would certainly notice "alien" technology mixed among their other fossils.

      And yes, rivers and whatnot move around - but highly trained people are already looking through sedimentary rock for oil, fossil fuels, and fossils. They don't need to be digging around modern rivers in order to know they've found a place where a river used to be. Sure, a tool-using dinosaur could have come in and out of existence very quickly without our noticing it, but if it actually developed into a "civilization" of even the most primitive sort I think there would be a bunch of tools left over. Certainly enough to notice in the fossil record. If they industrialized at all, we'd see evidence in the sedimentary rock of that period as well. If they developed atomic power or weapons, we'd see isotope evidence in the sedimentary rock.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    41. Re:One word: Glass by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Sand is not glass.

      If you think that sand looks like glass, then you are not very good at looking.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    42. Re:One word: Glass by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      . If you were a construction worker who found a chunk of "modern" ceramic while excavating,

      Quarry workers are actually pretty damned good at spotting "the unusual" in the ground. The literature is full of reports of the form "specimen first noted by workers who bought it to attention of [lead author] who performed a rescue excavation over [several days]"

      Palaeontologists get a shift on to do a recovery excavation because you want this mine supervisor to report the next find as well, which could be more interesting than this one. Same for civils work.

      an arrowhead of a totally unique style, would you think dinosapien, or would you think unknown human civilization?

      That's a false dichotomy. Unless you're utterly incompetent, you'll know your regional styles (or know who to call) so you'll know it's a unique style while you're excavating it. So you'll be collecting all the additional environmental data, context information etc and really getting your recording data tied down tight. Because fucking up the field work is an unforgivable sin - you really might just as well throw the specimen away if you don't do your recording right.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    43. Re:One word: Glass by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Some grains within some rocks within some regions of the Laurentian shield are more than 3.96 Gyr old. Others are barely over 1 Gyr old. It's a big and complex place. And none of it's rock grains are more than 5 Gyr old.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    44. Re:One word: Glass by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. But you still have to figure that ancient artifacts subjected to many thousands of times as much geologic damage are going to be more difficult to recognize as unusual in the first place.

      Seems to me, claiming to have found a 20-million year old artifact could be a far more career-ending move than doing the field-work poorly. Plenty of archaeologists have been sidelined for far less controversial claims. And most people are far more interested in their careers than avoiding sin. Unless you happened across a substantial cache of artifacts, many still unexcavated to allow independent corroboration of your field work by someone reputable, even publicly documenting it as an improbable novelty is likely to get you derided for bad field work and outlandish speculation, if not outright fraud - a ghost that could haunt your career for years.

      Heck, you scour the internet a bit you come across all sorts of "weird artifacts encased in stone" stories - pretty much all dismissed out of hand as kookery or fraud by experts - if the experts even deign to weigh in at all.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  4. Toilets by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Creatures are pretty much universally threatened by their own excrement bacteria.

    Any civilization would need to deal with shit. Porcelain is a technology ideally suited. It would be discovered and used. Ceramics were used by humans for chamber pots very early in our history.

    The fossil record would contain a large number of intelligent dinosaur toilets, if they had existed.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    1. Re:Toilets by DavenH · · Score: 1

      From TA, it seems unlikely to ever hit on an old civilization's urban areas:
      "the current area of urbanization is less than 1% of the Earth’s surface (Schneider et al., 2009), and exposed sections and drilling sites for pre-Quaternary surfaces are orders of magnitude less as fractions of the original surface."

    2. Re:Toilets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've had civilization for hundreds of thousands of years before we started firing pottery. We just shat in a hole, like pretty much every long distance hiker does these days. You're likely to find simple dirt ditch latrines for most of a civilization before you're going to see porcelain thrones.

      And some of what we consider to be a normal form for a toilet designed for humans is somewhat culturally biased because plenty of people still use squat toilets. Certainly a simple chamber pot is practical for human anatomy and living in a high density urban setting where you can't realistically go outside and dig a hole conveniently.

      And if you're semi-aquatic you might not even have a practical need for elaborate sewer systems. You might sleep in a tide pool and venture out to hunt and gather firewood. (assuming the hypothetical civilization has fire)

    3. Re:Toilets by AxeTheMax · · Score: 1

      So, we're living in the collective toilet of that early micro-organism that evolved to produce oxygen. It's just so big we don't see it.

    4. Re: Toilets by c6gunner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the current area of urbanization is less than 1% of the Earthâ(TM)s surface (Schneider et al., 2009), and exposed sections and drilling sites for pre-Quaternary surfaces are orders of magnitude less as fractions of the original surface

      And yet we keep finding buried and hidden signs of civilisations in the middle of the Amazon, and fossilized remnants of long extinct species in the middle of Africa.

      They're also ignoring that any reasonable civilisation would have been likely to build their urban centres in many of the same locations we have; near water. This isn't a cultural preference; it's a huge logistical advantage. Given that we've been doing a hell of a lot more excavating near coastlines than we have in the middle of the Canadian tundra, the odds of finding signs of a past culture are WAY higher than the stated 1%.

    5. Re: Toilets by DavenH · · Score: 2

      They didn't state 1% odds; they said 1% of earth is currently urbanized, and they implied much less chance of finding a similar 1% coverage by our exposure to old earth surfaces.
      Also near-water locations aren't static over millions of years.
      The hidden signs of civilizations in jungles are found because they are on our present geological surface, and can be exposed with LIDAR scans.

    6. Re: Toilets by swb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We already knew about a lot of the "hidden" Amazonian civilizations, it was knowing where to look that allowed geospatial tools to be used to notice how much larger the scale was. Even if you accept the idea that they were well-hidden, they've only been gone, what, 2000 years or so? What would finding them be like if they had been gone millions of years ago?

      Building near water is obvious, but this assumes that water has always been where it is now. Wild rivers change course dramatically on a nearly annual basis, and over millions of years they may have radically changed course in addition to their flood planes accelerating the destruction of any evidence they once existed. Cities on oceans would have had millions of years of exposure to erosion, storms, tidal action, etc.

      I'm glad you're so sure of your conclusions. Maybe you could write the paper's authors and share your analysis and relevant research experience.

    7. Re: Toilets by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      They implied wrong.

      1% of the earth's surface is still a hell of a lot of area. It would be a much smaller fraction of the geological record, but we've taken _many_ millions (likely billions) of samples. You only need to find a one part of it.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    8. Re:Toilets by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Define civilization? Pottery is one of the first technologies, not absolutely first, but very early.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    9. Re: Toilets by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Presumably civilisation would involve large animals in large numbers, which is what humans are doing and which is quite unnatural (modulo the part when humans themselves are natural, of course). So skeletal finds themselves should be suspicious even if we didn't know in advance what animal in particular should be the intelligent one.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    10. Re: Toilets by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      Near water isn't really a static thing. Pangaea started to break up only about 175M years ago.

      What I think is more interesting there is if Pangaea was less of a host to civilized life than the modern day continents, simply by virtue of the fact that presumably non-specialized life would only have found it easy to flourish in a band around the edge.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    11. Re: Toilets by DavenH · · Score: 1

      Fair point.
      If you model the problem assuming we'll definitely know we've hit on an artifact each core sample that runs through an ancient city, and that both core sampling and city distributions are uniform, and core samples are arbitrarily large depth, then yes... you'd need only 0.99^n=0.5 => n=70 core samples to have 50% chance of hitting one.
      I believe the first assumption is the least probable.

    12. Re:Toilets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Million-year toilets? They'd be nothing more than odd rock formations after a million years, maybe not even that odd.

    13. Re: Toilets by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Even if you accept the idea that they were well-hidden, they've only been gone, what, 2000 years or so? What would finding them be like if they had been gone millions of years ago?

      Harder, but given that we have fossolized examples of non-technological hominids which went extinct millions of years ago it seems absurd to postulate that we would be extremely unlikely to find signs of a technological civilisation which existed at the same time.

      Building near water is obvious, but this assumes that water has always been where it is now.

      No, I'm not talking about "always", I'm talking about the same date ranges which the authors were referring to in that section.

      I'm glad you're so sure of your conclusions. Maybe you could write the paper's authors and share your analysis and relevant research experience.

      Why? The section which he quoted is prefaced by them noting that they are "speculating" about the probability. Their expertise doesn't play into it much; they're engaging in a thought exercise rather than crunching numbers or examining data.

      The rest of the paper is actually quite interesting. You really should read it.

    14. Re: Toilets by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They're also ignoring that any reasonable civilisation would have been likely to build their urban centres in many of the same locations we have; near water.

      Since they're talking about civilizations that may have occurred tens to hundreds of millions of years in the past, the likelihood that THEIR "near water" is not only not the same places as OUR "near water", but it's unlikely that their "near water" is even on the surface of the Earth.

      Do note the part about the oldest surface currently existing on the planet is less than two million years old....

      And this ignoring small, recent things like sea level changes. Just in the last million years, sea level has changed by many meters, many times, what with the advance and retreat of the glaciations that are part and parcel of the Ice Age we're still in (yes, technically, we're still in an Ice Age. An Interglacial in the Ice Age, but an Ice Age nonetheless - until the continents rearrange themselves so that the Arctic Ocean isn't, we'll be in an Ice Age)....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    15. Re:Toilets by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      The fossil record would contain a large number of intelligent dinosaur toilets, if they had existed.

      There are these largish deposits of oil, coal, and pockets of natural gas.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    16. Re: Toilets by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Only 10k - 70k years ago the coast lines where about 100 - 1000 miles different.
      Actually a no brainer. Google for sea levels / coast lines during the last "ice age".
      No one is examining ancient coast lines buried under hundreds of feet of sludge.

      There most likely is no single river on earth that a somewhat close resemblance of its current flow before the most recent "ice age".

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    17. Re: Toilets by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      They're also ignoring that any reasonable civilisation would have been likely to build their urban centres in many of the same locations we have; near water. This isn't a cultural preference; it's a huge logistical advantage. Given that we've been doing a hell of a lot more excavating near coastlines than we have in the middle of the Canadian tundra, the odds of finding signs of a past culture are WAY higher than the stated 1%.

      And of course, those bodies of water would be in the exact same place, flowing the exact same way, hundreds of millions of years later...

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    18. Re: Toilets by suutar · · Score: 1

      are the coastlines in the same place as a million years ago? If not, the cities probably won't be either.

    19. Re: Toilets by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Isn't year-round icecaps the defining feature of an ice age? Sufficient global warming will likely eliminate at least the summer Arctic icecap. Antarctica on the other hand would take considerably greater warming - there's a lot less thermal transfer with the rest of the globe without an ocean underneath you.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    20. Re:Toilets by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 2

      Yup, along with Ceremonial Burial, Horseback Riding, Alphabet, The Wheel, Masonry, and Bronze Working.

    21. Re:Toilets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow didn't take you long to come up with a fucking fantastic example. I was sitting here thinking of one and then boom i saw yours and thought "shit that's a good one".

      You certainly can't choose anything biological or metallic, as decomposition and oxidation will fix that goose within centuries. Your suggestion is relatively low-tech yet highly resilient. Does porcelain even degrade? What eats it? Fuck now I have to spend 2 hours reading about it on wikipedia, which always leads me to more and more stuff haha

    22. Re: Toilets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, the coastlines change over thousands of years. Ice age glaciation and sea level rise have changed all coastlines in the world in the last 12 thousand years. Not to mention, glaciers formed and turned everything under them into rubble and moved that rubble somewhere else.

      Island Arc collisions would erase anything on the coastlines of California on the scale of millions of years.

    23. Re:Toilets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know what you are talking about Mr. Sid.

    24. Re: Toilets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you miss the part where coastal areas would be a hundred miles out in the ocean and under a mile of muck?
      So now you're looking for 1% land usage of areas 100 miles from the existing coasts, at the bottom of the ocean under a mile of muck.

    25. Re: Toilets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Off by 3 orders of magnitude, so close...

      Try 4 Billion years old.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    26. Re:Toilets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Wheel is wonderful for moving around hard land surfaces because of how it solves the gravity/friction problem. No land-based civilization could exist without wheels.

      How about an civilization of something like sentient dolphins? Would there be ANY value in a wheel under water?

    27. Re:Toilets by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      No land-based civilization could exist without wheels.

      Probably not necessary in an Amazon River fishing village where you might have trouble finding unobstructed paths for your carts.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    28. Re:Toilets by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Even assuming intelligent whales (current best guess is they are about as smart as pigs, extra brain mass has been accounted for, sonar processing). How would they become civilized? No fire...

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    29. Re:Toilets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awesome, I wasn't expecting a Civ reference :D

    30. Re:Toilets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like the Incas?

    31. Re: Toilets by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Isn't year-round icecaps the defining feature of an ice age?

      No, that's the defining characteristic of an "icehouse" world, in contrast to a "greenhouse" world where there is no permanent polar ice. The planet seems to flip between the two, depending on the presence or not of polar continents, with a significant effect from ocean circulation modifying that driver. The Earth last went into ice house mode about the start of the Oligocene, as Antarctica moved into a polar position and developed a circum-polar ocean current which reduced heat flux from the tropics to the continent.

      The distinction you're looking for is between "glacial" and "interglacial" periods. That can happen very fast (geologically) - a few thousands of years - and definition is poor. I was observing geomorphological signs of oscillations around the last glacial-interglacial transition when I was hill walking last weekend, and I wondered to myself - "Do I put more significance on the valley glaciers spreading out of the mountain blocks onto the plain, leaving terminal moraines. Or do I look at whether the glaciers reached down to the current sea level, another 30 miles away? Or do I look at the deep frost shattering on mountain peaks as evidence of them being nunataks rather than all the peaks being covered by an ice cap?" The end of the Younger Dryas in the Northern Hemisphere was about 11.9kyr BP, but do you count the Younger Dryas as a 1.2kyr duration glacial episode, or was it just a short cold spell (see also "stadial") in an interglacial that started at around 20kyrBP?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    32. Re:Toilets by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      No land-based civilization could exist without wheels.

      Flat out wrong.

      The Inca (and preceding Andean civilisations) lived happily for many centuries with a sophisticated civilisation, and never putting wheels on anything larger than a child's toy.

      Cities of tens of thousands - check!

      Sophisticated agriculture and water management - check!

      Central government and control - check!

      What is this AC's definition of "civilization"?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    33. Re: Toilets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We already knew about a lot of the "hidden" Amazonian civilizations, [---] Wild rivers change course dramatically on a nearly annual basis, and over millions of years they may have radically changed course [---]

      100 million years ago, the Amazon river would have flown into the Ivory coast, as South America and Africa were still breaking up from Pangea. I think it's pretty safe to say the river didn't exist in any way similar to what we think of as the Amazon today.

    34. Re: Toilets by Immerman · · Score: 1

      The greenhouse/icehouse terminology seems solid enough, and a good distinction between our planet's bistable states. But icehouse seems to be a synonym for ice-age: e.g. the many references to the Quaternary Ice Age, the Karoo Ice Age, and the other four known ice ages, and by your definition that implies at least mostly-permanent icecaps, does it not?

      Obviously it would seem that glacial and interglacial periods are necessarily confined to within an icehouse period - you're not going to get significant glaciation if you can't even manage permanent icecaps. And equally obviously they'll be far more vaguely defined as they're due to much more subtle variations of climate - there is no fundamental bistable toggle, just arbitrary distinctions we draw for our own labeling conveninece. Much like red versus orange versus yellow - orange didn't even exist as a separate category a few centuries ago.

      My question was simply - is it the permanent icecaps that distinguish an icehouse/iceage period, or is it the arrangement of continents that makes those icecaps more likely? To put it another way - if our current rampant burning of fossil carbon continues unabated long enough to actually cause a bistable inversion to a Greenhouse Earth state, would we still be considered to be in the Qauternary Ice Age? The continents wouldn't move noticeably, but it could still take millions of years for atmospheric carbon to be reabsorbed sufficiently for the cooling influence of constricted polar ocean currents to be able to re-establish permanent icecaps.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    35. Re: Toilets by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      When Pangea was together Andies didn't yet exist. The 'Amazon' drained the whole thing to the west.

      Yes this has been studied. Fossil record etc.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    36. Re:Toilets by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Groups that use wheels, duh.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    37. Re:Toilets by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      Humans were doing OK prior to Queen Vicky and no normalized sanitization mechanisms.

      Tuvalu is covered in bird phosphates. They are ok and even sell the phosphates for cash.

    38. Re:Toilets by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Cholera epidemics were routine until modern sewage treatment.

      They still are where the sewage isn't treated and the population density is high.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  5. Reminds me of a scifi book i just read... by unique_parrot · · Score: 1

    ...written by Klaus Seibel https://www.thalia.at/shop/hom...

    1. Re:Reminds me of a scifi book i just read... by DavenH · · Score: 1

      You might like "The Nameless City" by HP Lovecraft.

    2. Re:Reminds me of a scifi book i just read... by unique_parrot · · Score: 1

      Thanks!!

  6. The rule of headlines by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

    If the headline is a yes/no question, the answer is "No".

    If the answer was "Yes", then the headline wouldn't be a question. By making it a question, the headline writer gets to have the headline be truthful while being much more interesting than the equivalent statement.

  7. A Great Game and Movie Idea by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    What industrial process generates as a byproduct, concentrations of iridium and carbon cenospheres; 64 million years ago?

    1. Re: A Great Game and Movie Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's no asteroid, that's a space station!

  8. There are those who believe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    There are those who believe that life here began out there, far across the universe, with tribes of humans who may have been the forefathers of the Egyptians, or the Toltecs, or the Mayans, that they may have been the architects of the Great Pyramids, or the lost civilizations of Lemuria or Atlantis. Some believe that there may yet be brothers of man who even now fight to surviveâ"somewhere beyond the heavens!

    1. Re:There are those who believe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I knew my password, i'd +1

    2. Re:There are those who believe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And this is why humanity will never spread across the stars.

    3. Re:There are those who believe... by the_skywise · · Score: 3, Funny

      And then came Galactica 1980...

    4. Re:There are those who believe... by CanEHdian · · Score: 1

      Yeah... when a microwave can seriously mess up a Cylon, but they're hardened against even the most powerful EMPs... wait, the humans DID try to take out the Cylon fleet with EMPs, right?

      --
      When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
    5. Re: There are those who believe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those TV shows are spreading across the galaxy right now.

    6. Re:There are those who believe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They sadly never invented EMP, that was us!

    7. Re:There are those who believe... by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      And just think, Kobol is a planet...

  9. Yeah... by rally2xs · · Score: 1

    They were called the Krell. Had this big project, creation without instrumentality. Their own flaws consumed them overnight once they turned on their big machine.

  10. Garden of Eden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on, man, we all know before Homo Sapiens showed up that everything was in the Garden of Eden! If only that bloody Eve hadn't gotten all hangry over that apple. "Yo, uhh, Adam, you try it first, y'know, just in case it's poisoned."

    1. Re:Garden of Eden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find that people who can't talk science try to inject all kinds of religious or political nonsense into scientific discussions to look "edgy" or "insightful." These people are, of course, wrong and dimwitted. Thanks for playing tho. Maybe next time you can make up some crap about flat-earth-blah-blah-blah. You're a special person and we wouldn't want for you to feel left out.

    2. Re:Garden of Eden by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Yeah, my wife does this.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    3. Re:Garden of Eden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find that people who can't talk science try to inject all kinds of religious or political nonsense into scientific discussions to look "edgy" or "insightful." These people are, of course, wrong and dimwitted. Thanks for playing tho. Maybe next time you can make up some crap about flat-earth-blah-blah-blah. You're a special person and we wouldn't want for you to feel left out.

      The joke. You missed it. Over your head.

    4. Re: Garden of Eden by negRo_slim · · Score: 1

      This is a historic /. thread! I had to scroll all this way to finally see Trump mentioned! I'm excitedly hopeful!

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
  11. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  12. Antarctica mountains by Ziest · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The place to look for civilizations that pre-date us is, of course, Antarctica. We really have not done much exploring of the Transantarctic Mountains. Who knows what might be found there.

    --
    Another day closer to redwood heaven
    1. Re:Antarctica mountains by Bigbutt · · Score: 2

      Madness

      --
      Shit better not happen!
    2. Re:Antarctica mountains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides penguin shit, and the odd spot of madness?

    3. Re:Antarctica mountains by DoktorMidnight · · Score: 5, Funny

      There was one expedition to the area decades ago by Miskatonic University, but it was disastrous. There were no survivors of the original expedition; the only two men who returned were from the rescue team dispatched by the University. They came back ranting about shifting eyes in the darkness and kept repeating a nonsense sound: "tekeli-li." There have been no other attempts made to explore that place afterwards. Even if the rumors of a great and terrible city, ancient beyond all measure, are true, we only have the word of two men barely clinging to their sanity after being exposed to one of the most extreme environments on Earth.

      No, there is nothing to be gained by exploring the Transantarctic range. There is nothing but madness in those mountains.

    4. Re:Antarctica mountains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Opening to an Alien movie?

    5. Re:Antarctica mountains by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      The place to look for civilizations that pre-date us is, of course, Antarctica. We really have not done much exploring of the Transantarctic Mountains. Who knows what might be found there.

      I've got a few fiction recommendations along those lines...

      Check out James Rollins' novel Subterranean. Perhaps not his best work, but it was the first one of his I read and got me hooked on him and I've enjoyed his other action-adventure novels, including his SIGMA Force series.

      A good military action-adventure read is Matt Reilly's novel Ice Station -- which I'm still hoping someone will make into a movie. I've enjoyed Matt's other novels as well.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    6. Re:Antarctica mountains by White+Yeti · · Score: 1
    7. Re:Antarctica mountains by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      Or a stargate.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    8. Re:Antarctica mountains by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Madness

      Tekeli-li! Tekeli-li!

    9. Re:Antarctica mountains by Greyfox · · Score: 2

      Or a Predator hunting ground.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    10. Re:Antarctica mountains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If its fiction you are after, then Jeff Longs "The Descent" (unrelated to the film which uses many of the same concepts) details a humanoid civilisation that existed for hundreds of thousands of years in massive cave systems beneath the earths surface. We get to see that civilisation at its very end, but its a hugely impressive story and concept.

    11. Re:Antarctica mountains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope it's pussy!

    12. Re:Antarctica mountains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Miskatonic University is a fictional place from an HP Lovecraft story.

    13. Re: Antarctica mountains by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Or Lake Vostok.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    14. Re:Antarctica mountains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's just what the Illuminati and the Wizards of Ultima Thule **WANT** you to believe (grin)

    15. Re:Antarctica mountains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remarkable that no one got the joke.

    16. Re:Antarctica mountains by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      The discovery of exotic history requires exotic funding I see.

  13. Duh... Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you ever hear of Bilbo, Gandalf, etc? Before our current species, there was Middle Earth. But they had magic, so that covered up all traces of it.

  14. Don't think so big. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think the more interesting variation of the question isn't, was there a civilization like ours.. industrial, nuclear, "advanced". Most signs point to no... but were there any pre-industrial civilizations that didn't make it and died out? They wouldn't have used up the earth's resources like we have. They wouldn't have produced advanced materials that would survive millions of years. They wouldn't have left a layer of radioactive material to be preserved in the fossil record.

    A pre-industrial civilization, with their homes made out of earth and tools made out of stone would be completely wiped out from the ravages of time, and we would have no way of knowing.

    1. Re:Don't think so big. by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      A pre-industrial civilization, with their homes made out of earth and tools made out of stone would be completely wiped out from the ravages of time...

      The stone tools would not all be wiped out.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    2. Re:Don't think so big. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you shouldnt say millions of acres a day if no one else is.

      For example In December of 2017 brazil lost 184 km^2.

      https://news.mongabay.com/wildtech/2018/01/new-satellite-detects-amazon-deforestation/
      https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/landsat/news/40th-top10-amazon.html
      http://earthsky.org/earth/view-from-space-amazon-deforestation-1975-vs-2012

      Let us know if you want any other strawmen defeated.

    3. Re:Don't think so big. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, like the lumps of flint found in the chalk layers in England ?

      Beyond a couple of Myr the whole of the earth's surface has been recycled and the problem is a lump of stone tool embedded in other rock isn't necessarily going to be recognized as a tool. It's just a hard inclusion.

      The only thing I could see surviving from our civilization is spark plug ceramics and possibly ceramic ball bearings. Good luck finding one in a few Myr and even if you did, it's just a tough fossil.

    4. Re:Don't think so big. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know if it's a straw man so much as poor precision. "Millions of x" = "Lots, enough to be awe-inspiring!" Sounds about right for a kid.

      I've heard people mention the "millions of people" who died on 9/11. The actual number was around 3000 or so, but in 2001 and 2002 the point was "a scary number of people died in 1 event!"

    5. Re:Don't think so big. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      The stone tools would not all be wiped out.

      More to the point, a stone tool that was useful (practically a definition of a tool) would be worth moving from where you found the original stone (this obsidian lava flow ; that flint-containing limestone) to another place where you used it (obviously, you could use it where you found the raw material too). When the tool is lost (dropped, tent burned down, whatever) and it gets embedded into the soil and becomes a fossil, it will be considerably different in size to most of the surrounding sediment. And that is something that shows up in the geological record for billions of years - I can track natural pebble bands like that in mountains a little along the road from here, and that gives me a baseline from which I can say "these unusually-shaped stones are unusual compared to the surrounding sediments".

      It's a subtle point - but I look at rocks for a living, and that sort of thing is where you're looking to find evidence of where your sediment is coming from and going to ("provenance studies").

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  15. I believe there have been other civilizations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look up topics like "out-of-place artifacts", tools and manufactured items found embedded in coal rock, or unexpectedly found at great depths during construction or mining.

    Another interesting thing is erosion and the effects of time and weather do to a planet.

    All mountain ranges eventually turn into sand due to erosion, but some mountain ranges on our planet are relatively sharp and pristine, such as the Himalayas, while others are long turned into sand, like the Sahara.

    Clearly, the Sahara is infinitely older than the Himalayas, and it suggests the planet periodically renews itself in a cycle of meterological and geological maximums. If it didn't, the planet would've been one fine blend of sand and water by now.

    The kind of geological affects that create entire mountain ranges thousands of meters tall must make 9.0 earthquakes look like gentle strokes, and I think these effects may have wiped out previous civilizations before ours.

    1. Re:I believe there have been other civilizations by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      Look up topics like "out-of-place artifacts", tools and manufactured items found embedded in coal rock, or unexpectedly found at great depths during construction or mining.

      I'll just leave this here. TLDR, proponents of out of place objects are either seeing what they want to see, perpetuating a hoax, or have an insufficient grasp of relevant scientific or historical topics.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:I believe there have been other civilizations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly, the Sahara is infinitely older than the Himalayas, and it suggests the planet periodically renews itself in a cycle of meterological and geological maximums

      No shit, Sherlock, That's exactly what Plate Tectonics is about.

    3. Re:I believe there have been other civilizations by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 0

      The Sahara was tropical rainforest till a bunch of people developed camels and goats, which ate the green stuff, roots and all.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    4. Re:I believe there have been other civilizations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Sahara has been a desert for about 7 million years (and people have been around less than 3 million years).

  16. Huh? by beheaderaswp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well if we can still find fossils of dinosaurs many millions of years old that were not "crushed to dust" wouldn't a city leave some trace?

    I find both the Drake equation and this hypothesis to be faulty.

    The Drake equation outputs whatever you decide to plug into it. It is a fine mathematical example of manipulating non-scientific people since the input to the equation is the supposition. Any faulty supposition gives an erroneous output. We do not know what the input should be. Therefor we do not have an accurate output.

    The supposition that an entire city would leave *nothing* when the bones of ancient animals can be found is a faulty presupposition.

    --
    Another consultant who stuck it out.

    "We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
    1. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Drake equation is a thought exercise - nothing more. It allows people to suppose different starting states and "see" what the end state would be. A fun game that ignores the hard facts of light speed and lets us imagine a galaxy full of bug-eyed aliens.

      Consider this about dinosaurs:
      We find almost no evidence of any single dinosaur. Bits and pieces here or that is about what we expect. When someone finds a nearly complete skeleton (just sixty percent missing!) this is a major find. Dibbles and dabbles all around the globe.
      Dinosaurs existed on the planet for about 88 million years. They've been gone for 65 million years. There is hardly anything for us to find.
      Humans haven't been here for a million, and our glorious industrial civilization only stretches back to 1712 (Newcomen steam engine). Three hundred measly years.
      So, yeah. If humans were wiped off the planet right now in 1.8 million years the aliens wouldn't even find a dark patch in the ground.

    2. Re:Huh? by Whorhay · · Score: 2

      Fossilization of remains is a pretty rare occurrence. Such preservation requires very specific conditions. As another poster mentioned Dinosaurs were around for longer than they've been extinct, tens of millions of years ago. Yet finding new deposits of fossilized dinosaur remains is newsworthy. Then you have things like the Coelacanth that we thought went extinct with the dinosaurs because we couldn't find newer fossils. Turns out Coelacanth's are still around, they just weren't in the right places to leave fossils, we think.

      It is entirely possible that small and relatively primitive civilizations could have existed before we evolved. They could have simply failed to leave any fossil records. Or even if they did there is no guarantee that we'd have found it by now? Consider how much of the landmass has been thoroughly searched geologically for fossils. Then think about how we haven't even fully mapped the oceans except for some very crude sonar stuff.

    3. Re:Huh? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Our huge piles of garbage are probably the most likely objects to leave fossils, not buildings or machines. The future Cockroachites will name "species" such as CocaColus, PezDispensis, HappyMealus, ETcartridginia, and AolDiscus.

      The Drake equation is a thought exercise - nothing more ... lets us imagine a galaxy full of bug-eyed aliens.

      Bugs? Hell no: green babes with 3 tits. EM-drive ready yet?

    4. Re:Huh? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      >

      The supposition that an entire city would leave *nothing* when the bones of ancient animals can be found is a faulty presupposition.

      Dinosaurs existed for around 80 million years. Sheer numbers alone, we're talking hundreds of billions of dinosaurs[1]. How many complete dinosaurs remains lasted long enough for us to find?

      If there was a civilisation prior to the dinosaurs, and if they numbered in the billions, we still wouldn't find any trace of them (maybe space junk if they got that far, but even then with the time that has elapsed the space junk may have fell out of orbit too).

      [1]Humans only existed for a fraction of that time and we have 7 billion of us here

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    5. Re:Huh? by jezwel · · Score: 1

      Consider this about dinosaurs: We find almost no evidence of any single dinosaur. Bits and pieces here or that is about what we expect. When someone finds a nearly complete skeleton (just sixty percent missing!) this is a major find.

      https://www.quora.com/What-is-... There are complete dinosaurs in fossil records, some with feathers, some you can still discern their colours.

    6. Re:Huh? by Darkling-MHCN · · Score: 1

      We have trouble finding cities a few thousand years old. A few hundred million years is a completely different ball game. What does a city look like when you compress it down to a few inches? The process of fossilisation of organic matter depends on rapid decomposition followed by replacement of that matter with another like limestone. Again with inorganic structures that's going to be different.

      I love the arm chair scientists on slashdot, They're so efficient.... no research required... just skip all that bollocks and jump straight to a hypothesis.

    7. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find both the Drake equation and this hypothesis to be faulty.

      Just because we don't have the correct inputs doesn't mean the equation is faulty. At best the Drake equation is missing a term based on some undiscovered physics...but if you truly "found" that you wouldn't be posting on /., you'd be busy revolutionizing human society. ...of course I suppose the revolution could start with a /. post but personally I'd start with 4) profit!

  17. Mirrors on the moon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In case the civilization that replaces us doesn't have space travel I've made a Miley Cyrus mix album to set the record of my existence straight.

  18. should always proof read an academic paper by Thunder_Princes · · Score: 0

    "For example the has been considerable discussion of how many times life began on Earth during the early Archean given the ease of abiogenisis (Patel et al., 2015) including the possibility of a "shadow biosphere" composed of descendants of a different origin event from the one which led to our Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) (Cleland & Copley, 2006)." pg 4 typo, i think they meant "there". distracting mechanic.

    1. Re:should always proof read an academic paper by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      The first words on the paper are "(in press Int. J. Astrobio)". This is the stage at which you do things like proof-reading. You also do things like putting the figures inline with the text, setting up captions, and formatting the reference list into the house style. This is a "pre-publication server".

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  19. We would know it. by DalM · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If there was a global industrialized civilization like ours 1,000,000 years ago, we would know. Even if all their foundations had long been covered by eons and crushed to dust, we would still see the impact of the civilization in our geology. Humans in the last 100 years have permanently changed millions of square miles of millions of centuries of geologic record. If a species before us had that kind of impact, we would know.

    Now, if there was some species of dinosaur at some time that lived in small mud-hut villiages, I can't see that we would ever be lucky enough to find evidence of that.

    1. Re:We would know it. by DavenH · · Score: 5, Informative

      The paper addresses this geological impact paradox. For the signal to be obvious in the geological record, it has to be sustained, but for a civilization to persist long enough to be obvious in geological time scales, they have to be in equilibrium with the environment.

    2. Re:We would know it. by quantaman · · Score: 2

      The paper addresses this geological impact paradox. For the signal to be obvious in the geological record, it has to be sustained, but for a civilization to persist long enough to be obvious in geological time scales, they have to be in equilibrium with the environment.

      If you're talking about bronze age or even iron age civilizations sure. But the summary mentioned industrial civilizations, perhaps something technologically equivalent with ourselves, in which case they're going to use a lot of resources, and that's going to show up both in the weird stuff deposited into that geological layer, but also the stuff they mined from lower layers.

      I did a really brief skimming of the paper, they seemed to think that if an ancient advanced civilization was out there so would the evidence (though we haven't deliberately looked for it yet).

      --
      I stole this Sig
    3. Re:We would know it. by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      If there was a global industrialized civilization like ours 1,000,000 years ago, we would know. Even if all their foundations had long been covered by eons and crushed to dust, we would still see the impact of the civilization in our geology. Humans in the last 100 years have permanently changed millions of square miles of millions of centuries of geologic record. If a species before us had that kind of impact, we would know.

      Now, if there was some species of dinosaur at some time that lived in small mud-hut villiages, I can't see that we would ever be lucky enough to find evidence of that.

      Even in the case of a stone age culture, we would most likely see signs in the geological record. Namely, an extinction event as the species grows and claims more of the resources. Similar to arrival of humans to the Americas, large land mammals were killed off fairly quickly. This was both because they are good sources of lots of meat as well as killing of predators, so even if dinosaur species were herbavore, we'd most likely see an effect in the fossil record. even worked stone would show up for a stone age civilization. Worked flint and obsidian or even ground stone would survive, as would quarries, and in such numbers that normal weathering and other natural forces wouldn't explain them. Not to mention, if they were meat eaters, we'd end up finding butcher marks on the bones of other dinosaurs if they were preserved. Still, while cases of preservation are rare and only happened in certain conditions, we'd find things like quarries, mines, fire pits, graves, and other geological distrubances like we find areas where dinosuars dug their nests.

    4. Re:We would know it. by DalM · · Score: 1

      If the stone working species never ascended past basic hand axes and only lasted for a few thousand years, I could see how it would have been possible to miss up to this point. There might be a few hundred thousand hand axes spread all over the world buried tens of feet below the surface.

      Nevertheless. I'm not a "true believer" in Occam's razor, but the easiest explanation for the complete lack of evidence to the contrary is that we are the first -both on Earth and in the entire galaxy.

    5. Re:We would know it. by DalM · · Score: 1

      I really don't think so. I work with geoscientist and geologic engineers. We poke holes all over God's green earth. If there was any significant advanced civilization that caused any significant amount of changes to the environment, we would have seen it by now.

      It's like SETI. Sorry, it's a fun thought but it's just not there.

    6. Re:We would know it. by TheZeitgeist · · Score: 1

      For the signal to be obvious in the geological record, it has to be sustained, but for a civilization to persist long enough to be obvious in geological time scales, they have to be in equilibrium with the environment.

      But the premise is easily falsifiable just sitting at a table thinking. Total thermonuclear war would leave a long radionuclide record, one that today's nuclear scientists could forensically walk reactions back and wonder where all the tritium and plutonium must've come from.

      Even pre-industrial outfit like the Roman Empire being all non-mechanized and 'sustainable' left permanent ice-core layer from all their silver-smelting in Spain, using sluice-flood techniques that shaped the Rio Tinto landscape into something like Bryce Canyon. That'll last a few millions of years or so.

      These are societies that come and go in blink of geologic time, with all kinds of technologies. This is easy

    7. Re:We would know it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All you arm chair scientists really should have read the actual paper. They talk about isotopes that might be affected by civilizations and tritium and plutonium obviously aren't them. We are talk about geologic time. Billions of years. Pu-239 has a half-life of only 24,100 years. Tritium is 12.5! It doesn't make you look smart to think two minutes about this and post when you could have read the actual paper.

    8. Re:We would know it. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Total thermonuclear war would leave a long radionuclide record, one that today's nuclear scientists could forensically walk reactions back and wonder where all the tritium and plutonium must've come from.

      A fission war might leave a signal. Whether it'd still be detectable after dispersal over several vertical cm by bioturbation by recovering organisms a quarter million years after the bombs stopped falling is a different question, and far less clear to me.

      Tritium would be effectively undetectable after 13000 years. Plutonium would be severely attenuated after a quarter million. Half lives do mean something. It might seem a long time to you, but it's peanuts geologically. Yes, we detected the shenanigans at Oklo - but it took a long time to figure out what went on, and that was only because it was a uranium mine that the level of detailed work was done. The most detailed radiation survey commonly done in exploration is gamma-ray spectroscopy, which uses a scintillator which can differentiate between decay of potassium-40, uranium-238, and thorium-232 (as indicators of clay minerals, adsorption of uranium onto sedimentary organic matter, and clastic sediment respectively). If you want a more detailed survey, you need to make a business case for the value of the information, and justify the cost of hiring a tool and running it.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    9. Re:We would know it. by TheZeitgeist · · Score: 1

      Reactions from a thermonuclear war would be identifiable and forensically reconstructible even from all the way back 65 million years ago. This is how the tritium would be found out; not from directly finding tritium, but exhausting other possible neutron sources that can explain isotope assay left behind today. Obviously nothing like a thermonuclear war is in earth's past.

  20. The moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most likely place for direct evidence of such industrial, technical, civilization is artifacts on the moon. Assuming they where truly technological and industrial of course.

    Indirect evidence would be things like mass extinctions and possibly thin archeological layers with minute traces of nuclear reaction products.

    1. Re:The moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the Tycho crater, with dimensions in the ratio of 1x4x9.

  21. Well thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for blowing my cover!

  22. Sumerian Civilization by js290 · · Score: 0

    #852. John Anthony West is an author, lecturer, guide and a proponent of Sphinx water erosion hypothesis in geology. http://podcasts.joerogan.net/p... Why The Sumerian Civilization is Way Too Controversial for Mainstream History https://youtu.be/ogw6BJRL_rQ JRE #961 - Graham Hancock, Randall Carlson & Michael Shermer http://podcasts.joerogan.net/p...

    --
    "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
    1. Re:Sumerian Civilization by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      #852. John Anthony West is an author, lecturer, guide and a proponent of Sphinx water erosion hypothesis in geology.

      He spoke once on a college campus where I was working and I dropped in to hear him. He was nutty, but a really nice person, and had surprising musical knowledge. I was sad to hear that he died a couple of months ago.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  23. There's barely one NOW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    with humans! But then, you have humans like creimer that drag the average down...

  24. They were pretty advanced, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They had nuclear reactors in Africa 1.7 billion years ago.

  25. Paleoclimatologists would have found it by now by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    We have easy direct evidence from ice cores accounting for last 3 million years and numerous direct and indirect proxies going back at least 2 billion years.

    1. Re:Paleoclimatologists would have found it by now by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      oh the 2.7 million year ice cores were found at the end of last year, but were they analyzed yet for civilization's traces? I think not

    2. Re:Paleoclimatologists would have found it by now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The need to look for evidence of fast-food farts to see how advanced the culture was.

    3. Re:Paleoclimatologists would have found it by now by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      indistinguishable from bacterial farts though, lots of living things make methane with stinky sulfides. now the fossilized burger turds with sodium nitrite and filler, that's a dead giveaway. also the ding dong wrappers and orange drink jugs from the crack whore class, a sure sign

  26. Smart, Dumb People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A lot of these theoretical questions very quickly boil down to stupid, false associations with our development and completely consume themselves with ruling out the question based on those false associations. It's no different than ruling out planets that can host life because they do not possess the same composition as Earth, or that are too close/far from their host star. We do this continuously even though we know in our own solar system that Titan may be able to host life outside of the Goldilocks Zone.

    The majority of the Atlantic version of the article discusses our use of fossil fuels as being the penultimate way for a civilization to exist at an industrial level. However, this is bogus. What if something about the former species that metaphorically walked the Earth enlightened them to other means of power altogether? Perhaps they near-magically made the leap to light or wind-based power without heavy pollutants involved. Perhaps their own biology provided a means for powering other entities? Perhaps their biology presented so many different benefits that they did not need power for most things (natural night vision, better cold/heat regulation, and high speed movement), and they simply missed out on other advances because of ignorance?

    This whole piece was written by two hippies that know about a lot of stuff, but really aren't good outside of their own domain (and probably aren't that good at their own domain either).

    The prospect that we'd detect this great alteration to our climate millions of years later for a species with a lifespan 500 times longer than our own by detecting fossil fuel usage is downright idiotic. We're not even 200 years into the Industrial Age of humanity and we're already phasing out our usage of fossil fuels. The planet's continents have literally shifted in the time frames that they are discussing to the point that such a civilization would not even recognize their home world without us having ever existed. There are far greater forces than these two blithering monkeys can clearly comprehend beyond our own modern pollution and use of exotic metals. We consistently find great usage of Graphene -- aka carbon -- to the point that it is expected to do everything and we find carbon everywhere. Who is to say we won't find other miraculous usages of basic minerals instead of requiring exotic ones for as long as the Industrial Age of humanity has lasted so far? Certainly not these two people.

    1. Re:Smart, Dumb People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your homework for tonight, Anon. Cow., is to look up the word "penultimate" in a dictionary.

  27. Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.luisprada.com/the_lacerta_files/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSKEYvvoLxU :)

    (At minimum, a well researched scifi yarn that purports to be fact)

  28. Dinosaurs came before humans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As Dr. Michio Kaku explained at Silicon Valley Comic Con 2018, the dinosaur who saw the asteriod said "Look at that!" and the other dinosaur said "Oh, shit!"

    1. Re:Dinosaurs came before humans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "As Dr. Michio Kaku explained at Silicon Valley Comic Con 2018 [youtu.be], the dinosaur who saw the asteriod said "Look at that!" and the other dinosaur said "Oh, shit!""

      The other dinosaur really said "You can't spell for shit!"

  29. Two words: Sea Glass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Glass doesn't rot, doesn't rust...

    But does erode.

  30. Once we locate R'lyeh all answers will be given by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    by the whimpering extinction of yet another mighty civilization.

    "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!"

  31. Depend on their tech level by aepervius · · Score: 1

    We are pretty sure there was no other modern civ, because otherwise we would have had evidence of coal mining, oil reclamation, all sort of stuff which would have been exploited, but we find no evidence of. We can be reasonably sure there was no iron age using civ (and metal generally), for the same reason, the mining would have left trace, if only in where we would expect to find metal ore and don't find it - because it has been mined. Now orogeny/subduction could have created some at plate separation, but the rest of the continent ? Doubtful. If you go to lower tech level, like stone age civ ? There is no way whatsoever to know. Feel free to speculate about dinosaurus civ.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Depend on their tech level by iggymanz · · Score: 2

      No, that mining evidence would have been crushed away too. We don't mine that deeply, 2.5 miles is a limit we've never crossed

    2. Re:Depend on their tech level by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      like stone age civ ? There is no way whatsoever to know

      You know how fossils last a long time because they're made of stone?

      How long do you think.... stone tools... would last? You know, from a stone-age civilization? Since they're stone.

    3. Re: Depend on their tech level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It blows my mind that the majority of the commenters here can't seem to grasp the actual scale of time we're talking about here.

      If 200M+ years ago, some somewhat-advanced civilization had been mining coal (or whatever else was available + near the surface at the time) there would literally be nearly no remaining evidence of the activity on earth.

      Take a look at projected continental drift models for the last billion years. The world as you know it literally came into being, it's highly unlikely that the last major supercontinent was the only one to exist in earths history.

      There are dozens of carbon events over the last 2.5 billion years that don't presently have any explanation. Current working theories done even attempt to explain them all, as there's few (if any) correlation between each, and the time scale is so comically long that no (known) expiremental evidence would still be around.

      A theory like this _could_ attempt to explain something like [the great dying](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permianâ"Triassic_extinction_event) and several other pre-history extinction events. (Though that's a stretch!)

      Very little of the world we _can_ explore overlaps with some of these periods of time, for all intents and purposes, we might as well be living on a different planet then we did 500mya.

    4. Re:Depend on their tech level by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You are quite wrong.

      We basically have no evidence for anything we did not explicitly look for.

      Consider the last "Ice Age", North America under an ice shield of about 3 miles thickness. Glaciers flowing outward to the oceans. If there was a "modern building" made from concrete and steel it would have been grinded to dust, it would been smeared over hundreds if not thousands of km of landscape. There is not real a chance in hell to find anything from it.
      If there was a civilization on the level of ancient Egypt or even steam age UK before the previous ice age, in the area of the ice shield, then absolutely nothing, except lost tools in a cave, would have survived the ice age. I doubt a WWII battle ship, like Prince Eugene, which survived several nuke strikes, swimming, would have survived getting dragged by a glacier 3000 miles far to the sea under giga tonnes of ice.

      A modern city like Las Vegas would have been smeared to dust. Nothing left. A city like New York would be somewhere 1000 miles out in the sea in minimum (originally) 150 yards deep water, probably covered by 50 yards of sludge or more (and grinded to pieces as well).

      On the other hand, we found Oezi ... a stone age man inside of a glacier when he got spit out he probably was about 10k years inside (but was not on the ground and got grinded)

      So were could we find something? Somewhere where there was no ice shield. But then again, about 1000km out in the sea, modern water depth about 50 or 70 meters, 50 to 100 meters under the sludge that has deposited there.

      Good luck in searching there, I doubt we even know how to look below such deep levels of sludge, you probably need detonations and acoustic methods like in oil exploration.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    5. Re:Depend on their tech level by slew · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, you do have the occasional "fossil" city like Pompeii which instead of being ground to dust, had the evidence of its existence preserved somewhat by in volcanic ash...

      Just like fossils aren't "bones" that have been preserved, you might expect the evidence of a pattern of a defunct city to be preserved somewhat in the presence of some short-term event like a volcanic eruption (rather being ground to dust by weather over time).

      The fact that we have not founds such evidence, doesn't preclude the existence of a mechanism for such evidence (however unlikely it is to occur) to exist.

    6. Re:Depend on their tech level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet we find entirely intact femurs from T-rex and fossilized footprints with the texture of the skin and nails. You better believe that any noticeable tech would leave significant artifacts.

      I'm astounded at the conspirical stupidity of the Slashdot crowd. You better believe Las Vegas, with steel pilings driven down deep into the ground and an entire concrete aqueduct system will leave a footprint in 10 million years.

    7. Re:Depend on their tech level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Past tense of "grind" is "ground", btw.

  32. If you realy believe in the possibility of other.. by Sla$hPot · · Score: 0

    ...civilisations. Go join Scientology and have a blast. Ignorance is a bliss.

  33. Of course there was one by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Interesting
    We remember their system of governance and department heads and ministers.

    Looks like they had a triumvirate headed by Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. They had some ministers for water (Varunan) or fire (Agni) etc. The head of the cabinet was Indran. Lots of detail of their biographies are available.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  34. Interesting Question - No Simple Answer by mykepredko · · Score: 1

    I think it's fair to say that more has gone on in terms of civilizations than what we understand today.

    There are many ancient architectural and scientific mysteries that suggest greater levels of sophistication than we believe their creators could have had.

    Along with that, nature is a lot more destructive than we can imagine - I remember the first time I saw an actual Ulfbrerht sword/made from the finest steel, but reduced to basically flakes in a thousand years which suggests that time will eliminate traces of technology. Although, dinosaur bones and footprints remain and we haven't found anything more than that from millions of years of

    The most likely answer is that there hasn't been anything before our civilization, otherwise I would think we'd find definite proof of it.

    1. Re:Interesting Question - No Simple Answer by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Dinosaurs were around 200million years, yet we have very few fossils.

    2. Re:Interesting Question - No Simple Answer by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      This site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...Ãbekli_Tepe
      was discovered 55 years ago,
      It took over 30 years to recognize its significancy.

      It is twice as old as any Pyramid or tower of Babylon.

      That site is over 10,000 years old.

      And there are plenty of sites like that. We have found about 2 dozens, all over the planet. In some cases indications they even traded amoung each other.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    3. Re:Interesting Question - No Simple Answer by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      , yet we have very few fossils.

      Approximately one new species of dinosaur (representing many individual fossils) is described every week. We are living in the "golden age of dinosaur discovery", today.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    4. Re:Interesting Question - No Simple Answer by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      There were hundreds of billions of dinosaurs that ever lived

    5. Re:Interesting Question - No Simple Answer by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Which part of "one new SPECIES" did you not understand? (HINT : look at the word that is not three letters long.)

      What the total count of dinosaur SPECIES is remains unclear - and until the last bird of the last bird species dies a lonely death like "Martha," the possibility of new species of dinosaurs remains. Because - see .sig

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  35. dear lord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what is this non sense?

    > When it comes to direct evidence of an industrial civilization -- things like cities, factories, and roads -- the geologic record doesn't go back past what's called the Quaternary period 2.6 million years ago. For example, the oldest large-scale stretch of ancient surface lies in the Negev Desert. It's "just" 1.8 million years old -- older surfaces are mostly visible in cross section via something like a cliff face or rock cuts. Go back much farther than the Quaternary and everything has been turned over and crushed to dust.

    The reason we have a fossil record is because fossils lay relatively undisturbed for some thousands or millions of years. And there's plenty of ancient rock exposed on the surface. Visit any mountainous fault zone; the top (younger) layers will be in the process of being eroded away, exposing the older layers. For instance, you can visit Rocky Mountain National Park to see granite over a billion years old ( http://coloradogeologicalsurvey.org/colorado-geology/igneous-rocks/plutonic-rocks/batholiths/ )

  36. High Pure ConcentrationsRare Ore by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 1

    Fort Knox and nuclear power plants should leave behinf

    1. Re: High Pure ConcentrationsRare Ore by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 1

      Typo. Nuke plants and Fort Knox should leave inexplicably large and pure concentrations of lead, uranium, and gold.

    2. Re: High Pure ConcentrationsRare Ore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean, like a uranium or gold mine? Over the span of time that they are discussing, the pressure of the Earth moving these elements around would naturally scatter them in a way that is explainable as a natural formation, just like we do with modern-day mines that have inexplicably high ratios of specific minerals.

    3. Re: High Pure ConcentrationsRare Ore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also the inverse. Any area inexplicitly devoid of particular minerals would be indicative of a mining operation. Radiation patches. Honestly, my guess is the fossilization evidence of domesticated animals would be a great indicator. Actually tbh, if there was an old civilization, despite what the synopsis says, we should still see some fossilization evidence of the people and their tools.

      https://news.wisc.edu/oldest-fossils-found-show-life-began-before-3-5-billion-years-ago/

    4. Re: High Pure ConcentrationsRare Ore by mykepredko · · Score: 1

      What's the difference between an "inexplicably large and pure concentration" and a vein of ore?

    5. Re: High Pure ConcentrationsRare Ore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should look up the word "ore".

    6. Re: High Pure ConcentrationsRare Ore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ore is not 99.999% pure gold, not even close. Ore is not in regularly shaped ingots of similar weight. Ore is not typically surrounded by regular square (building) structures. Ore veins follow shapes consistent with their origin, volcanic plume in the case of the copper (with gold and silver) mine that I worked at. Ore is typically a mix of similar metals (hence copper, gold, and silver being together).

    7. Re: High Pure ConcentrationsRare Ore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the difference between an "inexplicably large and pure concentration" and a vein of ore?

      Simple. A vein of ore is caused when dissolved ore precipitates into a fault in the ground. Veins to be surrounds by crystals that precipitate out of solutions are the same temperature as the ore.

      A buried building of gold bars would not look a vein nor would it look like a super-gene deposit.

      Same logic would apply to storage pools.

    8. Re: High Pure ConcentrationsRare Ore by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      How would come gold or lead come into a nuclear power plant?
      Why would an ancient civilization use nuclear power?
      Perhaps they only where on ancient Egypt level or UK steam age level?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    9. Re: High Pure ConcentrationsRare Ore by jwhyche · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why would an ancient civilization use nuclear power?

      Because it's a clean, reliable, and safe means of generating electricity for a technologically advanced society to use. Assuming they don't have a bunch of smelly fucking hippies get in the way of developing into such clean, reliable, and safe source of power.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    10. Re: High Pure ConcentrationsRare Ore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You lie. Ore comes in perfectly square blocks, all the same size.

    11. Re: High Pure ConcentrationsRare Ore by Type44Q · · Score: 2

      Jesus Christ, I'm pro-nuke and even I think your post is completely slanted horseshit.

    12. Re: High Pure ConcentrationsRare Ore by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Um... pure metal vs metal-containing rocks and metal oxides??

    13. Re: High Pure ConcentrationsRare Ore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it's a clean, reliable, and safe means of generating electricity

      Even if nuclear power was clean (it isn't, waste problem never practically solved), reliable (it isn't, power loss at many plants and its 3 days to meltdown when battery power runs out), or safe (close but no cigar, humans cannot be trusted to be reliable, weather and geological events unpredicatable, therefore... Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, et al.), it is and has always been the most expensive way to generate electricity, and it is likely any civilization that attempted to do anything more than supliment their power grid would have bankrupted themselves into extinction.

      I'm not a tree hugger, just a realist. We NEED nuclear power generation for the next 80-100 years. But we also need to shut down the blindly stupid pronuke slashdotters that convincingly spew unnecessary and wildly innaccurate pronuke propaganda. Solve two of the three lies you just told, and it might work. Solve the waste problem, get rid of the current glut of nuclear waste, and solve the problem with human error, or the problem of unpredictable weather and geological events, and you might have something. Otherwise, fuck your nuclear aspirations and the nuclear power community all the way up your ass.

    14. Re: High Pure ConcentrationsRare Ore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would an ancient civilization use nuclear power?

      Because it's a clean, reliable, and safe means of generating electricity for a technologically advanced society to use. Assuming they don't have a bunch of smelly fucking hippies get in the way of developing into such clean, reliable, and safe source of power.

      It's not the hippies that cause the biggest problems with nuclear energy. It's the politicians and human greed.

    15. Re: High Pure ConcentrationsRare Ore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They did, but unlike us they were sensible enough to put all the reactors in one place that's now in what we call South Africa ?.

      I'm not saying they did, but with all the ground movement what would a crushed reactor complex look like after all this time.

    16. Re: High Pure ConcentrationsRare Ore by rocket+rancher · · Score: 1

      clean as chernobyl? reliable as three mile island? safe as fukushima?

      really?

    17. Re: High Pure ConcentrationsRare Ore by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      Jesus Christ, I'm pro-nuke and even I think your post is completely slanted horseshit

      Oh I fully admit that it's slanted, it's slanted as hell. But it isn't horseshit. I wish it was but it isn't. In fact if you stretch it out you can almost tie every problem we have today from climate change to wars in Africa right at the feet of the '60s hippies.

      You see, the anti nuke movement didn't just stick to protesting nuclear weapons. They protested everything nuclear, fucking thing. From nuclear weapons, to nuclear medicine, right down to peaceful use of nuclear energy. But they didn't limit their fucking bitching to real issues, they protested nuclear research.

      Thanks to all this protesting nuclear research ground to halt. They are the reason that no new reactors have been commissioned and we are still stuck with coal burning plants. Their protest shut down all research in to new reactors so we are stuck with designs from '60s and '70s.

      But the biggest crime is the protests also stopped almost all funding for fusion research. If the hippies had stopped at nuclear weapons we might have working fusion reactors, which would have solved all our energy problems.

      I'll stop here now because you don't to get me bitch'n about what the hippy protest did to our expansion in to space with nuclear engines.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    18. Re: High Pure ConcentrationsRare Ore by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      clean as chernobyl? reliable as three mile island? safe as fukushima?

      Three Mile Island was over blown by the media and was caused by human error. The safety systems in place worked exactly as designed. No significant level of radiation was attributed to the TMI-2 accident outside of the TMI-2 facility

      Chernobyl was a old style reactor designed in the '50. It was a cluster fuck waiting to happen.

      Fukushima actually proves my point. Fukushima was a design from the '70. Since the fucking hippies had shut down all research into new nuclear systems there wasn't anything better available. If the hippies had just stuck to nuclear weapons then Fukushima wouldn't have happened be cause it wouldn't have existed. It would have been replaced long ago with a much safer system.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    19. Re: High Pure ConcentrationsRare Ore by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      That's REAL tenuous. The hippies had very little political power or influence. The establishment of the time scorned them. They got some of the things they wanted, but largely for other reasons.

      You can trace fear of nukes back before the hippies. There were 1950s movies about monsters created by radioactivity. That's basically the theme of Godzilla. At that time, nuclear deterrence relied on fragile bombers, considered vulnerable on the ground and effectively unstoppable in the air. There was no solid evidence that mutually assured destruction would work. (Damn, I'm bringing up memories of the Cuban Missile Crisis I could do without.)

      Anti-nuclear protesters are one reason why we don't have more nuclear power plants, but there are others. If people in general were comfortable with the things, the protesters wouldn't be nearly as effective. At the time, nuclear plants were dubious financially, because nobody really knew the cost at the end of service life.

      IIRC, Project Orion saw a nuclear takeoff from Earth, which isn't the most reassuring concept of the Space Race. It required large amounts of nukes to get into space, back when we didn't have decades of experience in getting stuff into space. The "what could possibly go wrong?" was terrifying. Remember the nuclear aircraft proposals? There were good reasons those never got off the ground.

      Fusion plants? Maybe. I'm still not convinced they're going to be practical. We're at a point where we get positive energy under carefully defined constraints, and we know a whole lot more about the science behind fusion power than we did then. I have vague memories of nuclear power being pushed as incredibly cheap, and I don't think fusion would turn out to be as good as its advocates sometimes say.

      So, assume that there were no anti-nukers back then. We'd have made more nuclear plants. We'd have put a lot more radioactives into the atmosphere. We'd use significantly less coal, which would help reduce global warming. We'd still be using coal power plants. They wouldn't have gone away entirely by now. We'd still be burning oil.

      Assume that fusion power were too cheap to meter, at least on the residential level, and that fusion plants were reasonably inexpensive and safe and producing all those neutrons is harmless. That doesn't solve our energy problems. It solves our electricity problems. Electricity isn't portable. We're just now getting practical electric cars, with experiments into electric ships and aircraft. This isn't a matter of electricity being expensive, but rather that storage is difficult.

      What would cheap electricity do to stop wars in Africa? Wars typically don't happen because there's not enough electricity.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    20. Re: High Pure ConcentrationsRare Ore by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      That's REAL tenuous

      It's not at tenuous as it looks if you think it all the way through. Sure, I admit that a lot of very iffy and there are a lot of different directions that we could have went with this.

      I don't hold any thing against the hippies that just protested nuclear weapons, that was a good thing. Even some of those that protested peaceful use of nuclear power did raise awareness of some of the issues. But what gets me the most is they continued to protest nuclear research.

      If nuclear research would have continued the "unsafe" designs we have today, designed in the '60 and the '70s would have been replaced long ago with cleaner and more efficient systems. We would have built new with the new designs instead of building a cheap coal plant. With continued research we might not even be using uranium as a fission resource any more. Thorumn and pebble bed reactors might be the norm instead of still in the research phase.

      Project Orion and nuclear aircraft in the atmosphere where just plan foolishness. I'm thinking of nerva rockets and orion in space. Thanks to hippie bullshit this scared the establishment enough to add it to the list of banned things in space.

      As for wars in Africa and the connection to fusion. Yeah, that is a bit of the stretch but there is a possibility. What are wars caused over? Mostly resources and ideological idiocy. We can't do much about the ideological idiocy, stupid is as stupid does, or something like that. With fusion we could have done something about the resources.

      The problem with resource is, it not that we don't have enough resource. It is we don't have enough resources that are cheaply available. When it comes down to it what is the currency of civilization? It's not money or anything like that. Those are just tangible means that we use to place value on the real currency. The real currency is energy.

      It costs energy to do everything from processing goods to moving them. If the promise that fusion might have delivered of cheap clean energy would have come true then cost would no lounger be an issue. With fusion energy desalination of sea water would not be a issue, so no more clean water problems. We could afford to mine and process resources that it wasn't economic to do before. We may have even moved those operations off planet completely.

      I know the fusion connection is really really far out there, but it could have happened. To bad we will never know.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    21. Re: High Pure ConcentrationsRare Ore by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      An ancient civiliation, just on the level of 1940, would not have nuclear power.
      The photoelectric effect was discovered by Einstein around 1910, they could have used photovoltaic.
      They might have lived in an environment where water power was feasible. E.g. the romans used aquae ducts to bring water over thousands of miles to run various kinds of mills.

      Right now nuclear power is dead. Perhaps they used it for 50 or 100 years and at some point in time we stumble over their waste. On the other hand the indian veda are full with war events that are most easily be explained by nuclear strikes.

      It is relatively easy to build houses that don't need much heating or air conditioning. During the occupation of Spain by the moslems, they introduced cooling techniques. Already the romans (despite having heating systems) build their houses in the way that they where cool in summer (atrium) but where warmed by the sun in winter.

      Keep in mind that we are not talking about a specific 'level' of civilization. For me an Egypt or Greece level would be enough to be excited. A level like WWI Europe/America, would be interesting too. Suppose such an civilization had existed in Ice Age Indonesia: we really had trouble to find anything signifiant.

      As soon as you find a way to handle nuclear waste of nuclear power plants we can talk about that ;)

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    22. Re: High Pure ConcentrationsRare Ore by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You live in some dream world.
      And hippie hater dream world.

      Fusion research is a very big thing, you must be living under a rock.
      Fusion reactors won't fix any energy problem in the foreseeable future: because it is really hard! (e.g. what fuel would YOU use?)
      I suggest to read a book about it instead of spreading your ignorance here.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    23. Re: High Pure ConcentrationsRare Ore by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Which part of: "Fukushima is in Japan" did you not grasp yet?
      Japan ... that is nont the USA. It is a country on the other side of the planet.
      You might have heard about it in school. For some obscure reasons the US
      once where at wat with Japan.

      So: there never really was an anti nuclear power movement in Japan.
      And: the plant did not go splash because of 'old plant, should have been
      replaced by new design' but because of idiotic errors/mistakes during construction
      and stupid slow reaction after the plant got diconnected from power.
      And: the cooling system was badly damaged by the earthquake. Would
      have happend to any plant.

      Hippies never shut down research into power nuclear pants, you are just an idiot
      making this up.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    24. Re: High Pure ConcentrationsRare Ore by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      An your just a smelly hippie that has not concept of history.

      Fukushima was a originally build General Electric which meant that it was a U.S. designed reactor. You, know one like your smelly brethren decided to protest the design of?

      So, yes, if people like you, hippie, had kept your yaps shut and stuck to protesting stuff you know about. Mainly badly made bongs, then Fukushima would have more than likely been ether replace with a better design or build from the ground up with better technology.

      So back in your hold smelly hippie, education isn't for you.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    25. Re: High Pure ConcentrationsRare Ore by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I'm not a hippie, moron.

      No on the planet ever has replaced a "working reactor" with a more modern one.

      Why? Because you earn more money with an old one instead of building a new one.

      No idea what is worse about you, your insults or your lack of knowledge.

      You seem not even to know what went wrong in Fukushima: hint, it was not the reactors fault, idiot!

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    26. Re: High Pure ConcentrationsRare Ore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you actually are a phag........

      Get triggered by your memories of b/w tv ?

      Phag.

    27. Re: High Pure ConcentrationsRare Ore by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      You started it, hippie, I just ran with it, hippie. You know how I know you're hippie? Because you where the only one that responded with butt hurt, hippie.

      An yes, Fukushima would never have happened if it wasn't for your smelly hippie groupies. So are you an original hippie or one of these new generation of hippies?

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    28. Re: High Pure ConcentrationsRare Ore by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Lead and uranium are too reactive to remain as metal for long - lead can barely last a couple of thousand yeas, and in an acidic soil, not even that long.

      Gold - that'll remain for long periods. By the time the walls and roof have caved in and the concrete reacted with carbonate-containing pore fluids, it'll be hard to recognise from a breccia with a concentration of gold metal in large flakes between the breccia grains. I wouldn't bet on that being recognised.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    29. Re: High Pure ConcentrationsRare Ore by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Okay. In the first place, you've completely failed to show that the hippies had any actual effect. I mentioned why other people might have been nuke-shy in the period, people with more political pull.

      I don't believe in completely safe complicated systems, and a nuclear reactor is a complicated system. Fukushima was a product of bad but in some ways normal business decisions, complicated with a major disaster. Reactors will be used past their intended demise, because it's cheaper than stopping and dismantling, and it can't be that dangerous, can it?

      Project Orion would have required nuclear weapons in space, and it's not surprising they were banned. There's no great difference between a Project Orion ship in orbit and a mobile orbital base to bombard Earth. (Well, re-entry vehicles, but those are not going to be easy to keep away from the nukes.) NERVA seems to have died in a budget dispute.

      You seem to believe that fusion power would be too cheap to meter, and we saw that wasn't true with nuclear power. If we ever get commercial fusion power, we will know whether it's too cheap to meter. You also seem to believe that unlimited cheap electricity would solve more things than I think it would solve. Africa's problems are social and governmental as well as economic We produce more than enough food to make sure nobody has to be hungry, and lack the global political will to actually carry that through.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    30. Re: High Pure ConcentrationsRare Ore by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      A hippie is one who was on Woodstock, I was not born that time, or just barely.
      Someone who smokes weed, or takes LSD. Has 'flower power' believes.
      Probably lived in a community, had group sex at least a few times in his live.

      Should I go on?

      If you want to insult someone, you should probably pick another insulting term than 'hippie' :)

      I would be very happy if I was a hippie.

      Regarding nuclear power you made clear enough that you have no clue.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    31. Re: High Pure ConcentrationsRare Ore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Should I go on?

      Please don't.

  37. The Nephilim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I first heard about our ancient alient ancestors the the Nephilim on Coast to Coast.

    Pretty interesting stuff, if I do say so myself.

  38. 65 million years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    65 million years is a long time for the earth to heal from the impact and let a shrew like creature to turn into a humanoid. It likely happened millions of times with dead ends and evolution had to start over.

  39. Old toothpaste tubes by Ted+Stoner · · Score: 1

    That's how I know people lived on my land decades before I was here. Extrapolating, I'm sure this will work for periods of millions of years too.

  40. The mice are still here by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 2

    They are able to control insects remotely via telepathy to watch the humans. They've already discovered everything discoverable and now have nothing to do.

  41. Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This Atlantic article is feeding us fake news. If there were a previous civilization on Earth to match or surpass human civilization, there would be clear evidence of that civilization in the DNA of existing species on earth today. No evidence of such DNA traces are presented in the Atlantic article.

  42. It was an interesting thought... up to this point: by HeckRuler · · Score: 0

    When it comes to direct evidence of an industrial civilization -- things like cities, factories, and roads

    ...are obviously ruled out since we would have dug up examples of METAL TOOLS among the fossil record at sufficient depths to raise eyebrows.

    ancient surface

    Who gives a shit? We can dig. Is the concept of stratum new territory for this guy?

    Go back much farther than the Quaternary and everything has been turned over and crushed to dust.

    Except for stone and metal. Duh. If there was anything "industrial", then we'd know. And we'd likely know if any dinosaurs used any sort of STONE TOOLS which are a pretty obvious stepping stone towards more advanced civilizations.

    Given that all direct evidence would be long gone after many millions of years, what kinds of evidence might then still exist?

    How about the direct evidence of any sort of worked stone or metal? Arranged stones? WALLS? No it's not "given" that direct evidence is long gone. How do you think fossils work?

    The real question is how social the dinosaurs were. Did they form packs? Did they make structures? Did they have any sort of tool use?

    As a reminder, there are social animals that build structures: Bees, ants, swallows. Even squirrels have nests with a family in it. Various types of ants literally farm fungus and herd aphids. So the concept of "civilization" isn't as human-centric as you might assume. ....But "industrialization"? Come on.

    Mr. Frank, along with Gavin Schmidt, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, have published their research on the subject

    Just by association with such a shitty summary, I'm worried about the NASA Goddard CFE module we're sticking in our satellite software...

  43. Think before you write by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "the geologic record doesn't go back past what's called the Quaternary period 2.6 million years ago" -- Whet is this supposed to mean? There are dinosaur skeletons that are tens of millions of years old, and silica skeletons from sea creatures that are older than that. Interestingly, there are no human bones that old in the "geologic record". So the real question should be, 'Was there a human/whatever civilization before the current one (that disappeared) within the last few hundred thousand years?'

  44. Inconceivable? by JudeanPeople'sFront · · Score: 1

    What is more inconceivable?
    1. We are alone in the Universe. Life originated only here and developed sophisticated beings capable of advanced civilization only here, and only once. We are the center of the universe. IT'S ALL ABOUT US, a speck of dust on the edge of a galaxy - one of 200 Billion galaxies we currently estimate!!!
    2. The world is full of life, and full of intelligent advanced beings. They have been here in the past and will come again.
    I pick option 2.

    1. Re:Inconceivable? by iggymanz · · Score: 2

      nonsense, we know the earth had only single cell life for most of its history. Only 600 million years ago did multicellular life appear. And in 300 million years the earth will be too hot for multicellular life due to expansion of the sun. So, in the universe life might be rare, multicellular life might be rare, and maybe most planets that even had life get roasted before anything interesting evolves. conclusion: we could well be alone

    2. Re:Inconceivable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I pick neither.
      The universe is hostile to life as we know it. Go hang out in space without a spaceship or comfy atmosphere if you don't think so.
      Maybe planets with life are somewhat rare, and those planets could be too far apart to reasonably detect each others' presence.
      Maybe the limits of physics are insurmountable and no species can travel between the stars, nor communicate with planets in a different solar system in a useful timeline.
      There isn't any way to know at the moment, shame.

      I figure if the universe was full of intelligent spacefaring beings, we'd know about it. Unless we are them! /bsg

    3. Re:Inconceivable? by JudeanPeople'sFront · · Score: 1

      Dude, why "nonsense"? Did you hear the thing about 200 Billion GALAXIES? We have limited ability to see star systems in enough detail to determine if they have earth-like planets. What we see is encouraging, though - Earth-like planets are not rare. Mars is an Earth-like planet, it possibly had life in the past. Liquid water and organic compounds essential for life have been discovered on asteroids and on some satellites of the big planets. There are bacteria that thrive in radiation, high acidity, pressure, cold, heat... They discovered bacteria in the vacuum and 170 degrees temperature amplitudes on the surface of the International Space Station! "Life finds a way". Life fills open space, as soon as the conditions are good enough to support it. We had a number of catastrophic events on Earth, that killed up to 90% of all species. And every time there was a species explosion afterwards. We are talking probabilities here, derived from incomplete data. What we believe in is more indicative of our personality than what the data suggests - there is not enough data for a certain answer. I chose to believe we are not alone. You believe what you want to believe. Peace.

    4. Re:Inconceivable? by JudeanPeople'sFront · · Score: 1

      We used to know that in the past. Graham Hancock, Lloyd Pye, Erich von Däniken... and a bunch of others have reminded us what we forgot.

    5. Re:Inconceivable? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      Actually, no earth like planet has been found. Zero. You're believing hype based only on being rocky in habitable zone, even if mass is many times the earth. We don't know atmospheric composition, state of greenhouse gas trapping, etc.

      your good-to-175 deg bacteria get toasted above that. not a good example of something that could exist outside of habitable zone of liquid water, they need it too!

        there are some events which could be unique to earth's history that haven't happened elsewhere. You can find reputable physicists on youtube discussing the issues.

      Could be we're doing the equivalent of believing enough monkeys with typewriters have one to produce the works of shakespeare in the case of other planets

  45. Civilization is very bad for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Going with the global mass extinction currently in effect.

    I don't think we would ever be able to tell if the dinosaurs wrote brilliant novels and had nice tea times, but unexplained mass extinctions you would notice.

  46. Re:It was an interesting thought... up to this poi by iggymanz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    no, you spew in ignorance.

    any metal tools or walls would be pushed into the earth and crushed over the timescales mentioned. that's how plate tectonics work.

    fossils are rare and hard to find, including any kind of tools even for less than one million years.

    all the objections people make here are done without even reading the paper, they are addressed

  47. Would be fine if there had been by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2

    Maybe if, somehow, we found enough evidence of a previous non-hominid terrestrial civilization, and what caused their downfall, then maybe, just maybe, we'd get pulled up short long enough to stop and think about some of the things we're doing right now, and how they may affect us, as a species, a hundred or few years from now.

    ..or, maybe, everyone would just say "LOL, what a bunch of losers, they blew themselves up! Glad we're smarter than that!" and just go on without missing a beat, like the arrogant animals we are.

  48. Not a new idea by Zobeid · · Score: 1

    This idea has been batted around in science fiction circles since the 1990s if not earlier. I guess maybe it's news now if actual scientists are taking it somewhat seriously for the first time? At least it's the first time I've heard about.

    I'm skeptical anyhow. If a prior civilization was ever truly widespread, I don't see how we wouldn't find remnants of it. There's a lot of stuff we produce that doesn't rot or corrode away with the passage of time. We'd be turning up their flint tools and stone sculptures, their pottery shards, their bricks, their broken bits of concrete, not to mention anything fashioned from noble metals (including aluminum). You can dig up gold coins that were buried several thousand years ago, and they come up looking like new. It's hard to see how additional millions of years would make much difference there.

    1. Re:Not a new idea by Yunzil · · Score: 2

      There's a lot of stuff we produce that doesn't rot or corrode away with the passage of time.

      I think you underestimate the effects of Deep Time. If humans all disappeared today, in 10 million years the only things left *might* be some fragments of space probes and a thin geologic layer with some odd chemistry.

    2. Re:Not a new idea by Zobeid · · Score: 1

      Deep Time? What does that even mean? There's just time, and one bit of time is just like another. If a gold coin doesn't corrode in 3000 years, repeating that 20,000 more times isn't going to change the outcome. (And if it did, there would be no such thing as naturally occurring gold nuggets.) I live on top of the world's biggest deposit of Cretaceous age limestone. We find dinosaur tracks here. We find bits and pieces of plants that washed into the sea and were buried in silt. They're carbonized, yes, but they're recognizable. Even bits of protein have been recovered from dinosaur bones.

    3. Re:Not a new idea by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      Deep Time? What does that even mean?

      Deep time is time scales on the hundreds of millions of years, up to the billions. Time scales so huge that entire contents can be subsided and reborn. Your gold coin tossed in the dirt would be slowly crushed and molded by forces over millions of years. So much so that it would be broken back up into is component atoms eventually.

      We still don't know how life got its start on this planet alone. Not to mention other planets. We have a good working theory, but its just a theory. Who really knows. Our planet could have been seeded by a advanced civilization 2 billion years ago with some kind of cosmic yeast. They would come back to our planet every few years and harvest the yeast as a food stock. Then that advance society could have went extinct, say some great telepathic war. Then over time we simply evolved from this yeast food stock in to our present civilization.

      Well it could happen.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    4. Re:Not a new idea by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      "Deep Time" is like "Deep Learning". It is like time, but like, deeper. Just like "Deep Learning" is like, you know, deep learning.

    5. Re:Not a new idea by Mab_Mass · · Score: 1

      We still don't know how life got its start on this planet alone. Not to mention other planets. We have a good working theory, but its just a theory. Who really knows.

      I'm not sure if you're up-to-date on the latest thinking, but we have reached the point of widespread consensus around the origins of life - alkaline hydrothermal ocean vents. A good popular account of this current model is conveyed in Nick Lane's book, The Vital Question.

      There are still gaping holes in our understanding, as you may expect, but this current model does provide a framework for explaining many of the idiosyncrasies of the common biochemistry of all life on earth.

    6. Re:Not a new idea by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      I agree that alkaline hydrothermal vents are a popular scenario for the origin of life. But claiming consensus - no : there is still significant and varied disagreement. Which is good, IMO.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    7. Re:Not a new idea by Mab_Mass · · Score: 1

      Can you point me at the alternative models?

      From my understanding of this paper, it seems like the alkaline vent is winning the debate.

      I admit, though, that i may have sampling bias.

  49. hahahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hahahahaha... no. We are the first and the last.

  50. So it's possible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So it's possible that there could have been a city of intelligent talking dragons?
    (References Angels with Scaly Wings)

    Or perhaps a civilization that wasn't human, but perhaps was wiped out with, well, time. And asteroids...

  51. Re:It was an interesting thought... up to this poi by omnichad · · Score: 1

    ancient surface

    Who gives a shit? We can dig. Is the concept of stratum new territory for this guy?

    That's the first clue to know where to dig. It's how most things are discovered. Just digging random holes on a planet with a surface area of near 200 million square miles is generally not very productive.

  52. Beware what you look for.... by McFortner · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

    --
    Beware of Sales Reps bearing gifts.
  53. Depends on how you define civilization by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

    Ants have been around over 100 million years. They have a complex social structure and job specialization. They farm fungus and aphids for food. They build vast homes that are essentially cities. They don't have art that we known of and they don't have technology unless you count building bridges and towers using their own bodies, but they've got most of the other attributes of what we call civilization.

    1. Re:Depends on how you define civilization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also wage war, take captives and make them slaves.
      They Domesticate other animals, and farm fungi.
      And you don't see them fucking each other over for a percentage!

    2. Re:Depends on how you define civilization by Oligonicella · · Score: 2

      They most certainly do. The workings of an ant colony aren't nearly as placid and cooperative as high school level reading would indicate. Workers go rogue, internecine conflicts within castes occur, etc.

    3. Re:Depends on how you define civilization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting, but i was actually making a snarky "Aliens" reference.

  54. If it's there, it's in the L4/5 Lagrange Points by lavaboy · · Score: 1

    L4 and L5 are them most stable Lagrange points in a system of orbiting bodies, and stuff in them will tend to remain in them even if the bodies that create them experience non-catastrophic changes. An advanced civilization, even one like ours just getting into space, would position something at L4 or L5 Earth/Sun or Earth/Moon Lagrange Points, a slightly more advanced civilization would put something at the Jupiter/Sun L4/L5, even if it was just a funny gold record with engraved instructions for playing it... So, we should be looking there.

    --
    Steve -- If you have to call it a system, you don't know what it is.
  55. Better Idea: Fossils by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    We don't know for certain and any that you come up with can be dismissed by claiming that they did not develop that technology. However, there is one process which we know does preserve things for millions of years and which any intelligent civilization would have to leave behind: fossilized bones of the species who built it.

    Apart from the lack of any evidence of fossilized graves there are no fossils of creatures with brains large enough to have the intelligence to make a civilization. So either they not only removed themselves but all their close ancestors from the entire fossil record or they had a radically different biology which allowed them to gain intelligence with a far smaller brain per body mass than any other animal. So the answer is clearly no because there is absolutely no fossil record to support it abd even things as simple as ant nests leave behind a fossil record.

    1. Re:Better Idea: Fossils by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Definitely not with that attitude.

    2. Re:Better Idea: Fossils by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Culture could play a role in that, while humans in many cultures bury their dead, cremation would seem to make it less likely you'd leave remains suitable to fossilization. I wonder if a body in a modern casket is more likely to rot away before the casket degrades sufficiently for mineralization to occur... although even if we missed the species that made a civilization, you'd think you'd see some bones of prey species with tool marks on them, unless they were exclusively vegetarian.

    3. Re:Better Idea: Fossils by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      Total cremation for everyone is very unlikely because of the huge amount of wood required. Even then it would leave a record with large amounts of ash created (you are burning everyone in an entire civilization!) plus the possibility to have fossilised, clean cut tree stumps. On top of this the fossil record of their ancestors should still exist, just like those of early hominids for humans.

  56. It was us (blowing ourselves up)... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: I believe we get to THIS point when our tech surpasses our humanity & have vs. have not = HUGE (money/knowledge) & wealth tranfer to "elites" + break middleclasses who keep economies healthy. Why? You're SHIT to them.

    A base pattern of political/religious control "obey our rules & be a good fool as WE BREAK THE RULES EVERYDAY".

    Masses out of work & despair? SMART ONES start looking to know why!

    Finding things 'controllers' do NOT want them to! Oh, they don't lie & often telegraph it, but keep you on 'bread & circuses' ignorant of it! Gutenberg press must've drove them nuts ("they will read & learn - NO!) but to have a technical society, the slaves have to read directions!

    (You learn what they do NOT want you to & tell others of it? They supress/censor them IF NOT KILL THEM outright)

    Tthey're better crooks that think it makes them 'smart' (not)

    They're DUMB as good rulers KNOW nobody knows all/does all so you NEED OTHERS even if only as serfs for soldiery & farming (which robotics do away with).

    Inevitable result = "The Symphony of DESTRUCTION"!

    APK

    P.S.=> I think it's happened a LOT - "Those who don't know history are bound to repeat it?"If it gets lost you can't learn by it. Controllers use it ("leaders" LEARN HISTORY) - F' up? Look what we did wrong last time, polish it up & avoid it, do it again (psychos planning by "secret societies" CENTURIES ahead)... apk

    1. Re:It was us (blowing ourselves up)... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the love of god lay off AM radio, or at a minimum realize that CoastToCoast and the Alex Jones show are not to be taken seriously.

  57. Vikings in North America by Ulfilas2000 · · Score: 1

    Until people knew to look for Vikings in North America their presence was invisible, and that was less than two thousand years ago. Go back even fifteen thousand years and how would anyone know where to look for ancient civilizations?

    1. Re:Vikings in North America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go back even fifteen thousand years

      We've found signs of Europeans (maybe Vikings' predecessors) that date back that far. But the Native American creation mythology demands that we run a bulldozer over it quickly.

  58. Of course not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If there were, there would be no Iron, Tin, Copper, etc. deposits close to the surface.

    Next question.

  59. Artificial satellites ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... and you're welcome and stuff.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  60. A sustainable civilization by hey! · · Score: 1

    would be very difficult to detect by archaeological means.

    That's because a perfectly civilization would never throw anything matter away; just entropy.

    Take shell middens, something we know a number of extinct civilizations by. State fish and wildlife agencies encourage restaurants to send their oyster shells to programs which return them to the ocean; it turns out that old oyster shells are the preferred habitat for oyster larvae.

    Of course the archaeological resource par excellence is the burial. Eventually we're going to run out of space for graves, and later even cremation is going to be present pollution issues. Sooner or later we're going to have to compost people. It sounds weird, but in truth if you look at our funerary practices they're already weird.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  61. Re: Randall Carlson and Graham Hancock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even Mount Rushmore will be unrecognisable in a few million years. You are but a fart in the wind on a cosmological timescale, tears in the rain on a geological one. Make hay while it lasts, you only live once and time is running out to make yours more meaningful.

  62. There's possible signatures by TheZeitgeist · · Score: 1

    If by 'industrial age' one means humanity circa, say, 19th Century steam age, there would be some traces I figure. Some inferred as mysteries unto themselves. A good example is the "Colombian exchange." Any paleontologist fifty million years from now, assuming they know plate tectonics, is going to be wondering why all these different fossils are found in only very specific places before a certain rock layer, then suddenly are everywhere in the world above that rock layer. From dogs to cows to sheep to peach trees to corn that's going to invite questions.

  63. Toilets by John+Jorsett · · Score: 1

    Seems to me the most non-degradable thing that would be clearly "man" made would be ceramic sinks and toilets. Assuming that, given alien anatomy and culture, they'd even use such things.

  64. What evidence we'd leave behind by PPH · · Score: 1

    Plate tectonics might very well destroy all traces of us on Earth. But there would be a couple of lunar landing stages plus some other junk on the Moon. Plus a poor little Mars rover running around collecting samples.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:What evidence we'd leave behind by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      But there would be a couple of lunar landing stages plus some other junk on the Moon.

      The small stuff would be buried by micrometeorite "gardening" in tens to hundreds of millions of years (I've got fossils older than that!). How long before the landing stages get shaken over or eroded ... harder to estimate.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  65. The Flea Circus by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    My money is on a civilization of nomadic performing troupes so small that you can't see them.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  66. Agreed & one of the oldest recorded histories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Agreed & 5k yrs. of recorded history comes from India (look @ Vimana & Vishnu). You may "get this" https://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12022589&cid=56491029/ - & I couldn't write this in there (post size limit on us AC posters = why) but I can now to "top that off"...

    * I truly DO think that is what is what... i.e. - WE HAVE "DONE" OURSELVES time & again imo (ala "If I can't run the show? Dig a deep enough ditch to hide & BLOW IT UP so we can do it again millenia from now, but better"...)

    APK

    P.S.=> Look @ legends like "Ragnarok" (world ends in fire when SURTUR comes & burns it up) etc. too... apk

  67. Re:Desperate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not AGW, PGW (patrikogenic global warming)...

  68. "Betteridge's Law" answers this question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was There a Civilization On Earth Before Humans?

    Betteridge's law of headlines states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word 'no.'"

    So the answer is: nope!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines

  69. Jamestown in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we can consider Jamestown as civilization - and it'd be hard to convince the inhabitants at that time that they weren't civilized - then even when we knew that the original fort existed, and had a map, it took us a while to find the outlines from 400 years ago. And they had guns and cannon back then. So it's not entirely crazy that we'd lose the record from 400,000, 4M or 40M or 400M years ago.

    Granted there's no evidence that's evident, but that doesn't mean there couldn't have been civilization. Especially if that civilization never got to the levels man has in the past 200 years.

  70. Blah blah blah Betteridge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No. Next question, please.

  71. good question, lousy answer by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    When it comes to direct evidence of an industrial civilization—things like cities, factories, and roads—the geologic record doesn’t go back past what’s called the Quaternary period 2.6 million years ago.

    We find fossils all the way to the beginning of multicellular organisms. What we find is consistent with what DNA tells us. We can say with certainty that there was no intelligent, tool-making vertebrate on the surface of the earth before us and hence no large scale technical civilization. It doesn't matter whether all their achievements decayed.

    Furthermore, given that we find 170 million year old fossilized dinosaur tracks from populations much smaller than would be required for civilizations, tracks from widespread wheeled vehicle use should be abundant, let alone fossilized technology. But there is absolutely nothing.

    It's a good question to ponder, for about a minute. If it takes you any longer to figure out why this can't be true, you aren't a scientist. The authors of this paper are little different from flat earthers.

  72. Hard evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Long after we are dead Voyager 1 and 2 and the Lunar Lander sites will survive. Aliens will discover them and harness/rape our planet for water and gold and any indigenous mammal and fish meat. They will flash freeze it..

  73. Re:It was an interesting thought... up to this poi by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    fossils are rare and hard to find, including any kind of tools even for less than one million years.

    Fossils are neither rare nor hard to find. Good grief, I went fossil hunting as a kid. Some of the most common fossils are trilobites; they appeared about 520 million years ago and died out 250 million years ago.

    Seriously, what is wrong with you people?

  74. yes, but. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They fell off the edge of the Earth.

  75. Don't tell the religious types by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    as they would absolutely lose their shit to find out we aren't the " chosen " ones.

    It would cause an existential crisis for a vast majority of the human species to learn such a thing.

    Not to mention the major religions would discredit such things because they would lose control over their flocks overnight.

    They're never going to give up that power.

    1. Re:Don't tell the religious types by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      Most Christians aren't Jews, even though Jesus said salvation comes from the Jews. A lot of religious types are used to being not the chosen ones.

      I find it entertaining how scientific types go tossing around phrases like "existential crisis" and "as a species" when these people have no idea what it means to exist and they think decisions get made somehow collectively by a species.

      As far as their leaders refusing to give up power ... that is more or less true.

  76. After global warming by Grand+Facade · · Score: 1

    Melts all the ice caps we will find the evidence there under the ice where it was hidden so it would not corrupt us.

    --
    Rick B.
  77. Also a bunch of fucking businessmen by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    and warmongers. What keeps us from switching to nuclear is that the cheap way to recycle waste can lead to weapons grade material and the expensive ways are unsafe because, well, they're expensive and businessmen are always cutting corners. Fukushima happened because the guy running the plant was a cheapskate.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  78. I would think things would be out of place by EdwardFurlong · · Score: 1

    I am sort of an amateur fossil hunter / rock hound. My SO and I dig up stuff and bring it back, much of it gets tossed in the yard. We donâ(TM)t find fossils from there over here like someone intentionally moved them.

  79. Gold, diamonds, etc by Dan+East · · Score: 1

    There are too many issues with this theory.

    Gold and diamonds have been recognized for their longevity by humans for millennia. It is extremely likely that any civilization would also identify gold and diamonds as being rare and thus valuable trinkets, and they would have been worked in various ways. Even after millions of years, gold that had been worked, or diamonds that had been cut, would be readily recognizable. Yet we have found none. Further, certain minerals, radioactive materials, etc, would have been collected and ended up in surface deposits that we also have not found. It's likely we would find radioactive elements with half lives that were not natural and are byproducts of an advanced civilization.

    The burning of any fossil fuels would have left very obvious deposits in the ice cores that go back millions of years.

    Many surface areas of the earth are very old, The Appalachians date back 400 million years. The Negev Desert in Israel has literally been sitting there as-is for 1.8 million years. Tunnels bored through mountains or passes cut through them would leave scars for hundreds of millions of years.

    They most certainly did not make it to the moon. We have easily found all of the landers and other probes in imagery from orbiting spacecraft, and they are going to sit there untouched for billions more years.

    Even so, we haven't found one piece of evidence to support this theory.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Gold, diamonds, etc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gold certainly. Not diamonds though. As far as we know, diamonds have been used by humans for less than a single millennium. They simply aren't particularly pretty except when you cut them in a very specific way.

      Most historic human civilizations did not discover that, or they had no access to raw diamonds.

  80. Re:It was an interesting thought... up to this poi by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

    Yet that's like being excited about finding fossil beetles and thinking it means you'd notice human civilization. There are a lot more beetles than humans.

  81. I shit my pants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It smelled bad. Then I had to toss a midget into a wood chipper. Midgets produce less blood than a human.

  82. Re:It was an interesting thought... up to this poi by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    Iggymanz claimed that fossils didn't last more than a million years; it was in response to that. We also have found plenty of fossils of uncommon species, so that objection is bogus as well.

    The idea that there was a prior civilization on earth that killed itself through climate change is on the level with believing that the earth is a flat disk resting on the back of a turtle; it is utterly preposterous.

  83. What about natural occurring nuclear reactors? by yooy · · Score: 1

    What about natural occurring nuclear reactors?

  84. Neanderthals had a basic civilization by jd · · Score: 1

    They had all the basic elements before humans, including symbolic representation.

    Homo Erectus had language and sea travel, which is a start and enough to call it a proto-civilization.

    Habilis did not. Neither did Sediba.

    So certainly nothing before 1.2 million years ago.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  85. duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    aluminum metal. odd shaped pieces of gold. gold alloys not found in nature. cut diamonds. synthetic gemstones. petrified wood boards. how about fossils not found where they should be? evidence of natural history museums.

  86. Besides the Silurians? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cretins, the Silurians were here first, and when they all wake up and stake their claim, we're all in trouble. And you can turn in your geek card if you that didn't immediately come to mind.

  87. Re:It was an interesting thought... up to this poi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    > Except for stone and metal. Duh. If there was anything "industrial", then we'd know. And we'd likely know if any dinosaurs used any sort of STONE TOOLS which are a pretty obvious stepping stone towards more advanced civilizations.

    We don't find enough in the way of fossils to have a complete record.

    Human civilisation has lasted what, 10,000 years - on that order of magnitude at least.

    Some almost unchanged dinosaur species are known to have survived up to 30 million years, and of those there are only two dozen specimens in existence. Entertain for a moment that they may have developed a civilisation much like ours.

    Rounding out, we have potentially 1.2 million years between examples. Even if their civilisation lasted ten times the length of ours, you could still fit 12 of those between fossil examples of that creature.

    Fossilisation is rare, *REALLY* rare. If humans existed at the time of the dinosaurs in the numbers we exist today, we might if we were really lucky have just two fossils preserved to be dug up 65+ million years later.

  88. Communication Satellites Are Permanent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We would find a prior technological civilization’s communication satellites still in geosynchronous or supersynchronous orbit. Satellites that far up can stay in orbit until the end of the Earth in 4 billion years. They are new permanent satellites of the Earth.

    When humanity has died out THIS is all that will let ALIENS know we were ever here
    http://archive.is/a7CvG

    The Last Pictures - Trevor Paglen
    http://paglen.com/lastpictures/main.php?m=overview&p=

  89. Younger Dryas by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    If we're going to consider what remains of civilizations we have to consider the Younger Dryas period where ice core samples suggest the polar ice caps were MILES thick and extended from the north pole well into North America.

    We have to keep in mind that human civilisations are characteristically coastal and also that means the earth had a greater land mass than today. With ice caps that thick and mounting evidence that this glacial period was ended catastrophically by some sort of orbital or volcanic activity, most of the evidence will be under at least 90 metres of water today.

    Whatever happened back then it wiped the face of the earth clean with the amount of energy and water released. The only evidence left behind would have to have been deliberately buried high, like Göbekli Tepe. That would have been a very bad day.

    So looking back only 10,000 years into pre-history is hard enough without adding two more zeros. Why don't we try being a little more practical and look 10-20 thousand years back first and try to figure out what happened then so the same thing doesn't happen to us?

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  90. The Reptillians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and they are still in control

  91. Fundamental Aspergers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Coal and oil *literally* are waste products of life. Mainly of dead bodies.

  92. Mass Extinction by Tom · · Score: 1

    I gave this some thought and must say the question is fascinating.

    I don't think there is much material evidence that would survive a couple million years. However, there is one area in which humans are already leaving a permanent mark on Earth. How would a future civilization, millions of years into the future, know we were here?

    By the mass extinction event that we are causing. Our scientists know about previous mass extinctions, so we can assume the current one will be visible to the future as well.

    So looking into the past, all one has to assume is that a past civilisation would also cause such events, which boils down to the question of would they explode unto the planet like we did? IMHO the answer is a resounding YES. Almost all the destruction caused by humanity is caused by growth - of population and industry. They are just two sides of the same coin, and growth is embedded into our genes. Every species tries to multiply, expand its territory, grow - in short: To win. The ecological disaster we are facing is the simple logical consequence of a species winning so hard that it doesn't even understand it.

    Any advanced species would hit a period in their progress like this, and would likely take some time to turn their society around from "we must do everything to survive in this world" to "actually, it would be cute if something else would survive as well".

    Other paths are imaginable, but much less likely. We should assume that a previous civilisation would be marked in the fossil records as a mass extinction event.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:Mass Extinction by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because no one is going to notice the literal tons of refined metal sitting in massive clumps.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    2. Re:Mass Extinction by Tom · · Score: 1

      Not if they sit one or two miles underground, crushed to small pieces, split up into several regions, no.

      When we are talking millions of years, a lot of assumptions go out the window.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    3. Re:Mass Extinction by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      You really have no idea about geophysics and geology.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  93. Before Humans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do you mean, before Humans? As if civilization is a ubiquitous thing found on every street corner of today's world....

  94. Have we looked for Magnetic Anomalies in Tycho ??? by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

    (obligatory 2001: A Space Odyssey reference)

  95. Care factor zero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who the fuck knows or cares !!!??

  96. No. by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

    Stop being dumb asses. Next question.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  97. Re:It was an interesting thought... up to this poi by Gilgaron · · Score: 2

    Oh sure, even the guys in the article didn't think it was likely, they just thought it would be really hard to tell if it happened, which is a fun thought experiment.

  98. A fascinating paper by Sqreater · · Score: 1

    However, I've known the Drake equation to be nonsense since I read it in "Intelligent Life in the Universe," which I read so many decades ago in my teens. You can't multiply guesses together like that and expect to get anything out but science fiction. Drake didn't even know if there are OTHER variables that are important. Which ones yous say? That's my point. We don't know. And let's stop this "dolphins-are-intelligent" thing. Why? Because they form primitive groups, quack to each other like Flipper and play with seaweed? When they write a sonnet and fly to the moon etc. I'll consider them "intelligent." The same for other animals. It is what they can do and want to do naturally that defines their intelligence, not what you can train them to do after a million dollars of training. The bar for something to be considered intelligent has been placed far to low - same for so-called AI.

    A previous industrial civilization would have depleted the fossil fuel supply of the Earth to a degree that probably would have been perceivable and even not to have allowed our present industrial society to develop.

    I suspect that the evolution of what I would call bio-genetic (just to order my own thoughts) processes were not mature enough to allow for intelligent life in the past and the further back you go the less capable the genetic engine of life was of creating a complex intelligent form. We are 4 billion years old. Our bio-genetic advance is that old.

    --
    E Proelio Veritas.
    1. Re:A fascinating paper by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you can write a sonnet without a million dollars of training, but I'd like you try flying to the moon without a million bucks...

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    2. Re:A fascinating paper by Sqreater · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you can write a sonnet without a million dollars of training, but I'd like you try flying to the moon without a million bucks...

      No one outside the human species trains us to go to the moon. That is something we do ourselves. That is the point.

      --
      E Proelio Veritas.
  99. Re:It was an interesting thought... up to this poi by EdwardFurlong · · Score: 1

    I still fossil hunt (mostly braciopods). There are areas where the earth is nothing but fossils 50+ feet? at least. Layers upon layers. I would think if there was a civilization we would find things where they were not supposed to be. Like all the fossils and geodes that have been moved to my backyard.

  100. I've read a lot + documentaries... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think for myself - You just projected you're a parrot: Unlike you projecting the you "learn" anything is by ROTE from TV telling you "what is what".

    * Look @ documentaries regarding things like Goebekli Tepe (sp?) & India's ancient histories (Vimana etc.) you might see it as I do.

    (You're not only a parrot but you're also an UNIDENTIFIABLE ANONYMOUS WORM trying to "get my goat" while "hiding" from me vs. using your "registered 'luser'" account - what's the matter? I thought your FAKE NAMES for your FAKE LIVES were "superior"??)

    APK

    P.S.=> On Alex Jones (whom I do listen to): He can be taken seriously - the thing HE does that blows away mainstream (greenscreen disappearing nose of Anderson Cooper & Cooper saying Soros wasn't working w/ nazis selling his own fellow jews into Hitler's clutches (both lies, The 60 minutes interview of Soros has him ADMITTING he did))? He truly reports things SHOWING the person saying it in video unlike CNN etc. ... apk

  101. Re:It was an interesting thought... up to this poi by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    metal tools ... crushed... that's how plate tectonics work.

    And this is upvoted?

    SOME stuff BETWEEN tectonic plates gets crushed. No, the entire lithosphere hasn't been recycled. Why else do you think the general shapes of the continents are identifiable since PANGEA?

    What has slashdot come to? Have you YOU read the paper? It never mentions "crushed". It waves away the whole "we would have dug stuff up by now" on page 5, in half a paragraph. 4 sentences. 1) "That seems unlikely". 2) The Earth is big and we haven't dug much. 3) We rarely find old shit. 4) We're going to say it seems unlikely again, but use more words this time with a shoutout to our homeboy Kidwell and his work. (And their point is DESPITE kidwell's work.)

    This a scientific paper that ignores the fact that we've not found any out of place artifacts with a handwave and an appeal to small numbers. "It's rare". But this sort of bullshit hurts the credibility of all of paleontology, evolution, and science in general. A SINGLE fossil out of place would put the entire concept of evolution into question. But we've never found one. Plenty of hoaxes and people simply being wrong, but no hard evidence. And we've never found any stone tools at those layers. In the entire history of paleontology.

    There ARE indeed unknowns out there. But this isn't one of them.

  102. Mt. St. Helens by tmjva · · Score: 1

    There's an old story about the students who went to study the phenomena surrounding Mt. St. Helens some years after it blew its top.

    The professor pointed out some layered strata on a cut hillside with a long dark streak running from end to end.

    He and asked the students to calculate "How long did it take for that dark streak to form in geologic time?"

    The students gave their answers usually in the form of hundreds of thousands to millions of years.

    The professor then told them it was formerly the parking lot asphalt of the National Park.

    --
    Tracy Johnson
    Old fashioned text games hosted below:
    http://empire.openmpe.com/
    BT
    1. Re:Mt. St. Helens by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      The alleged professor is wasting a rare bit of fieldwork time. You wouldn't calculate a thing in context like that. You'd set the students to examining the unit in question, and the overlying and underlying units for datable materials (fossils, in pure geology, but a 1965 coin under the dark unit and a 1980 coin from above it would work perfectly well). That would give you a "bracket" on the dark layer. The students would also be put to producing a "measured section" across the feature, and looking for variations along the outcrop. As part of that, they'd be looking for variations in the petrology of the materials below and above the unit under consideration - when they'd have seen the hardcore layer below the asphalt unit.

      Or maybe your little tale is a piece of bullshit invented from whole cloth by someone with no idea of how geologists work, and who is trying to make some "fucking stupid geologists" point. Which makes me suspect that you're a closet creationist.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  103. No. by Shadowkahn · · Score: 1

    It takes millions of years for plant remians to be buried to a sufficient under-sea depth to even be capable of producing oil. It then takes hundreds of thousands of years for the oil to actually form.

    In short, if there was a pre-human industrial civilization 2 million years ago, why didn't they use up all the oil? It's fairly unlikely they *started* their mass-energy production with nuclear or solar. If they were here, then the oil should have been grossly depleted long before we got to it.

  104. Any other truly stupid questions we can dig out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't these dudes just launch themselves in a rocket to prove the earth is flat?

  105. Larry Niven already wrote this story... by VAXcat · · Score: 1

    "The Green Marauder".

    --
    There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
  106. "No funding has been provided nor sought" by Fpdx · · Score: 1

    nice, in their Acknowledgements, pag.18.

  107. Re:It was an interesting thought... up to this poi by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    yes, trilobytes are marine fossils and common. guess again, we're talking about land things and there is reason the marine ones are common

  108. Re:It was an interesting thought... up to this poi by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    yes, sea life fossils are common for interesting reason, we're talking about land fossils. I'm amused at people who have weird mental model of plate tectonics of continents vs. ocean

  109. An understanding of tectonic plates might help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the 'evidence' was pushed back to the molten lava as the tectonic plates go through there motions there would be no such thing as cut stones or even porcelain. Your scale is too small. The earth's constant renewal at the geological scale would have wiped out all evidence that has been suggested.

  110. They might be giants.... by BrianMahoney1357 · · Score: 1

    The Old Testament mentions giants in a couple of places, once before Adam and Eve. Giants may be a misinterpretation, physical size vs. big brains. but I can't read Hebrew or Greek so I'll never know. I'm not in the least religious, certainly not as far as the New Testament is concerned, so reading the OT was like reading a very old bit of science fiction. It is thrilling, trust me. There are lines that will make you laugh out loud plus others that will make you question whether we came from apes or whether we are a twisted combination of aliens and apes. If you read it, you'll be alone with your thoughts. I can't find a damn soul who's read the OT from start to finish and is willing to swap theories about it. If you're doubting what I say, just read the bits about the Ark of the Covenant. Then check out Leviticus. If that's not atomic radiation or weaponry, then what is it?

  111. What kind of evidence...? by left00coaster · · Score: 1

    would a collapsed civilization leave behind...? See "A Canticle For Leibowitz" (Walter M. Miller)

  112. Re:It was an interesting thought... up to this poi by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    Of course. For a complete record, we would need EVERY LIVING THING to have been fossilized. There will always be gaps.

    You can throw about numbers like 10,000 years willy nilly, but stone tools predate homo sapians, and even the genus homo. We've found them as far back as 3.3 million years. If there was anything that developed "industrial technology", I'm willing to bet they started with stone tools. ...huh. Ok, so with that knowledge, you, me, and the authors kinda missed the obvious answer to "was there a civilization on Earth before humans?", Yes: homo erectus had simple tools.

    ANYWAY, entertaining for a moment that previous life on Earth had a similar development to humans, it seems very reasonable to assume they'd have a similar rate of development. That is, an exponential rate, as prior developments help them develop technology at an ever faster rate. And that likewise implies they'd be stuck using simple tools for a REALLY long time. We used stone tools for 3.3 million years. We used copper tools for 10,000 years. Iron for 4,000 years. If their development was anything like ours, they had a LONG ASS period of time where they made and used stone tools. And I dunno if you missed this somehow, but... stone tools don't have to fossilize. They're already stone. All we would need to find is stone tools at sufficient depth in the right stratum. Which applies to nearly every square inch of Earth. .... along with enough evidence that they weren't simply buried there by someone 3 million years ago.

    You know? I wonder if the pyramids will be around in 65+ million years. Probably. They are made of stone after all.

  113. Re:It was an interesting thought... up to this poi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no, you spew in ignorance.

    any metal tools or walls would be pushed into the earth and crushed over the timescales mentioned. that's how plate tectonics work.

    fossils are rare and hard to find, including any kind of tools even for less than one million years.

    all the objections people make here are done without even reading the paper, they are addressed

    So which is it:
    A) plate tectonics is like a giant CIA-grade paper shredder and it completely pulverizes and mixes together all matter on the earth's surface so that there's nothing left of any previous structures, OR
    B) the geologic/fossil record is a valid source of information on evolution, planetary formation, climate history, cosmic events, etc.

    Or are you saying this is some kind of Magical Plate Tectonics just like Christianity's Invisible Gardener, where Plate Tectonics magically knows exactly how to crush exactly any evidence we might have of past industrial civilizations, while still perfectly preserving evidence of the history of the planet and its non-industrial species?

  114. Re:It was an interesting thought... up to this poi by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    yes, trilobytes are marine fossils and common

    The point is: they are older than a million years.

    guess again, we're talking about land things and there is reason the marine ones are common

    Yes, and I found plenty of those too.

    Really, talking to you is like talking to a young earth creationist.