Interesting Notion

Cronos · April 2003

<div class="IPBDescription">Buildings and time</div> I read a post apocalyptic book a few days ago, and it was quite an interesting read. A group of people were making their way through an ancient crumbling city (Paris). That got me thinking. In all essentiality, all the buildings we build today are only built to last that generation before it is knocked down and replaced. At best, the greatest buildings last a century or so, or are revamped. The oldest structures are stone henge and the pyramids.

With modern technology, I think we could do a sight better.

The idea: Build a structure that could last through almost any disaster and stand the test of time. <b>FOR AT LEAST ONE MILLION YEARS</b>

Yes, you saw correctly. A century is a lifetime by our standards, a millenium is inconcievable, let alone a million years. Is it possible to build something that could withstand that amount of time?

What would be the criteria for such a building? I got thinking about it.

1. Must be able to withstand 1 Million years of Corrosion
2. Must be able to withstand a 1 Gigaton Nuclear Blast (Direct or indirect impact)
3. Must be able to hold a number of people (isolated or intermixing with the outside population) for that duration
4. Must be self sufficient
5. Must be able to withstand earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, floods and all manner of natural disasters

Time is short, I must leave earlier then I thought. Discuss amongst yourselves...

SovietDictator · April 2003

Yawn, I'm tired, so this won't be well thought out. But I would assume something underground would be the best. Build a box, then build whatever you want inside that box. Though I guess in a million years that box could end up somewhere else...

DOOManiac · April 2003

I think the big question here is not whether we can, but why would we bother? Even the giant godless corporations won't be around in a million years, so why should they bother to spend all that money, and it will cost a ton, for something that they won't be able to leverage the cost?

AllUrHiveRblong2us · April 2003

It's not hard to make something last for a million years, even I could do that. The really tough part is not dieing after you bury yourself in the ice cap of your choice.

Cronos · April 2003

There are many reasons why. I would have written them earlier, but time constraits dictated otherwise. Theres survival of the species, potentially, anyone living inside would be able to live through just about anything short of the complete annihilation of the planet.

But there are larger reasons.

Why did the egyptians build the pyramids? For the afterlife, naturally. Our society isnt controlled by religious beliefs, but we could preserve our culture there, imagine, in one million years time that coke and nike would still be doing business just becuase one single franchise operating the building survived all that millenia <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>

Think of it also from an anthropological point of view. Anthropologists today would commit murder to know minute details of our ancestors of 1 million years ago. So too, will the anthropologists of one million years hence be fiendishly interested in us, the building will serve as a time capsule for our culture.

Finally, the largest and in my opinion, the most important reason.

If humanity were to become extinct, in a few thousand years all evidence of our having been here, save for graves and underground pipe networks and vast cities of concrete, will have been obliterated. In one million years, even these long lasting skeletons of society will probably have been obliterated by the winds of change. What curious beings that may or may not wander the surface of our world one million years hence. It would be a shame for them to think themselves the first intelligent species to walk this earth. Within would be a record of our triumphs, and our failures, perhaps a warning to keep them from repeating mistakes that may have led to our demise.

It's more then just building something just for something to do, it's to ensure that humanity is remembered, even if the last man is long since dead, on this planet at least...

eediot · April 2003

i have a more interesting task!

in a form that will last for millennia, teach an outsider our language [er.. i mean, english.]. assume they do not know ANY language. [i.e, if i was english teaching somebody french, i couldnt say "bonjour is the french word for HELLO"]

you cannot use any sound. [you think whatever recorders we have now will be supported then? things change awfully quick - im pretty sure in another 10 years itll be hard to find somebody with a working record player.] you may use pictures.

i suggest a picture book using simple words, and associating the words with the pictures. i.e 'cat' and a picture of a cat.

dinner now, bye

bubbleblower · April 2003

You can't build things that are impervious to weaponry. Anything that is made of atoms we can take apart. The only reason people bother building bunkers anymore is that if they're hidden, or if the weapon goes off at a distance, there's better odds of living through it. But I can't imagine how you could build a "super armor" that could withstand repeated directs hits with nuclear weapons, because all matter can be taken apart by the extreme heat and energy released by a nuclear blast. Unless some material is found that isn't made out of matter it's a no go on invulnerability. Wood, iron, concrete, uranium, composite armor, etc... it's all made from the same subatomic particles, just different combinations. And those particles fly away from each other under extreme heat, no way around it. There are minute differences we experience in real life, such as gasoline burning a little easier than water in a bucket, but these are tiny differences that don't matter when viewed from a great distance, i.e., millions of degrees of heat, like a star, or a nuclear blast. It all comes apart.

That being said, there are some pretty tough issues that remain with having a self-sufficient bubble. Probably one of the largest problems is the tendency of humans to be uncooperative. If you think about it, earth is like a big bubble, and yet we're so far from having stability that we're all watching a war as we speak. Now, add to that the extremely fragile and rigid systems that would have to be in place in a smaller bubble, one with less space and natural environment. When you consider how the average person can't drive their car very long without smashing it into something stationary, I think its a stretch to think they'll be able to regulate food stores, CO2 levels, keep the airlocks shut, etc.

The International Space Station is not a complete example of self-sufficiency, because the people on board are hand-picked, intellectually elite, and instilled with military discipline. You couldn't run something like that with the "general public". You'd eventually have to start shooting people to keep them from screwing up the system, and at that point, paranoia would set in, and the whole thing would fall apart.

Cheers!

RyoOhki · April 2003

Well you can't really, with today's technology, build something that is going to stand up to what the earth and space can throw at it. Earthquakes, firestorms, hurricanes, continental movement and volvanic eruptions are all going to create big problems, not to mention erosion. If you were going to do this, probably a pyramid structure would work well. However, there's also the problem that even if you build something a kilometre tall, it'll probably be buried in a million years.

Stakhanov · April 2003

The best option for an everlasting structure would be a shielded moon base. Who would nuke the moon ? And there's no atmosphere or continental plates here , so if the shell is thick enough to protect the building from meteors foreign species studying our solar system would immediately find it.

If it had to hold a dense population then large solar pannels would be needed , but I doubt theses could be protected (perhaps use self regenerating materials ?)

If humankind is too lazy to terraform Mars , some rich megalomaniac could build such a structure with even less issues (Mars is an almost dead planet , but the thin atmosphere still eats most of the meteors)

Cronos · April 2003

The problem with placing the structure on another planet is that future generations will not see it, as well as having the infrastructure to build it in the first place.

I'm fully aware that no material can expect to stand up to millions and millions of degrees of heat and such, so a simple solution would probably be to give the building an ablative outer covering thick enough to withstand the blast with enough to spare for another.

Perhaps burying the building in a mountain would be a good solution. Allow for one million years of erosion and there you have it. Also, the inhabitants of the building would not be totally isolated from the outside environment. That would be absurd. The only situation in which total isolation would or even could occur would be in the event that a cataclysmic event would take place, such as nuclear attack or worldwide flooding. Otherwise, the building would be open, people would even commute there. They would simply be more prepared for disastrous events.

I do however think that such a building may require some advanced composite materials that we frankly dont have =\

Hida_Tsuzua · April 2003

Something similiar to this is the US's plan of a central nuclear waste dump. Basically somewhere in Nevada (can't remember which part, but it's stable and inactive part), they are hallowing out a mountain to store the waste. It's designed to hold it in until the waste is relatively safe if leaked (15000 odd years). While no human will likely live it in, it's being worked on to make sure people thousands of years into the future won't mess with it.

As for the leftovers of humanity, we have so much plastic that lasts nearly forever that there will be a lot of fossils. Reminds of a display of possible life in a million years and by some sort of neo-rat was the imprint of a coke can on a rock.

CanadianWolverine · April 2003

If such a project were undertaken, I would suggest the overall shape of the building in question be spherical, so that it might "float" on the earth's slowly moving surface. Then I would also suggest more than one of these time capsule buildings be built, in many different enviroments and on all the various continental tectonic plates, so that the chances that one of the buildings might survive any changes the earth experiences increases. Finally, I would suggest that the buildings be placed on other planets too, so that we might show we had the strength, intelligence, endurance, flexibility, and willpower to show that we influenced more than just this piece of rock we call earth. But as outlined previously in this thread the likeliness of humans cooperating with each other on such an impressive scale towards a common goal(s) would be extremely unlikely.

SpceM0nkey · April 2003

Alittle vain and presumptous to think humanity is worthy of a million years on this planet.

Alittle vain to try and build a structure to demonstrate human power.

Humans will die out.

The planet will live on.

Cronos · April 2003

You misinterpret.

Think of it like this.

A repository of the sum of all human knowledge, literature, art etc etc.

In part it is for ourselves, in part, it is for future races that will no doubt evolve after we are dust, to let them know that they are not the first, and that they are probably not alone.

Humans are arrogant in thinking that we are the first intelligent species on this planet, but thats another topic for discussion.

In short, it's a gesture, a "Hi there from a million years ago from an extinct race!" kind of thing...

RyoOhki · April 2003

I'd say build it here in Australia. We're the oldest and most geologically inactive continent in the world, and if you're going for stability you couldn't go wrong with down under. If you could get the right materials it could be possible, but I'm doubtful of being able to do this right now with the current levels of technology.

eediot · April 2003

shhhhh ryo, we dont want the americans building ANOTHER tourist attraction over here

/shudders

GET AWAY FROM ME YOU CRAZY GERMAN TOURISTS! NO! NOT THE JAPANESE! MY EYES, MY EYES!

Immacolata · April 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DOOManiac @ Apr 6 2003, 06:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I think the big question here is not whether we can, but why would we bother? Even the giant godless corporations won't be around in a million years, so why should they bother to spend all that money, and it will cost a ton, for something that they won't be able to leverage the cost?  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Giant Godless Corporations consciously builds huge glass towers because

a) They are fancy looking.
b) They are cheaper than concrete towers.
c) They last perhaps 20-50 years.

Only buildings we wanted to last more is houses actually.

Interesting Notion

Comments