Re: Earth after people

Al Gore wrote:
> In article <A7ydnSirHP3pqwjanZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, jewahe
> <j.hanvey@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
>> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>> The History channel speculates on the future of Earth if humans
disappeared 
>>> on tonight's (8 PM Central) special, LIFE AFTER PEOPLE. This has been 
>>> recurring theme of science fiction from PLANET OF THE APES, I AM
LEGEND to 
>>> BATTLEFIELD EARTH and even THUNDARR THE BARBARIAN (who had a really
cool
>>> sun 
>>> sword).
>>>
>>> Natch, since it's the *History* channel they do speculate on the
future by 
>>> looking at the past, including abandoned cities and see what happened
to 
>>> them.
>>>
>>> Ironic it's on opposite TERMINATOR: THE SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES, a
series 
>>> trying to prevent a world without humans.
>>>
>>> -- Ken from Chicago 
>>>
>>>
>> I think this is based on an article in Discover Magazine. The article 
>> was very, very interesting, and highlighted just how little nature
cares 
>> about the presence of humans.
>>
>> BTW, there was nothing sensational about the article. I expect the same

>> out of the documentary, with the exception that the documentary will 
>> take the op****tunity to use dramatic illustration and effects to make 
>> the point.
>>
> 
> Why is this a show that I swear I have already seen? Has there been
> something similar on a while back, or had I slipped into a timewarp? Or
> what?

There have been a couple of "speculative" documentaries about the end of 
humans and about the path evolution might take in the future.

There have also been endless documentaries about engineering failures 
and speculation about how current "feats of engineering" might fail in 
the future.

It's easy to get these things confused.

> 
> Domestic cats survive the best of our domestic animals?

Cats still retain much of their "wild" instincts. There seems to be less 
interest in breeding these instincts out of cats. Cat people seem to 
prize the independent, predatory spirit of these animals.

However, dogs have been specifically breed for a docile, submissive 
temperament, and retain fewer "wild" instincts (although they still are 
very much present in the right circumstances).

Nonetheless, I watched a documentary on dogs some time ago, and it 
surprised me to learn that there is very little difference in the DNA of 
any domesticated dog and wolves. The variations are so minute, many 
scientists question whether they should be classified in different 
groups. Certainly, dogs and wolves can - and have - mated successfully, 
and, if humans weren't around, any differences in the two groups would 
eventually fade.

-- 
JWH