I think that this view is too… Hmm, what’s a good word… Not anthropomorphic because we’re talking about humans all around… To convinced that the path we took to get where we are is the only path that gets here.
Let’s be clear, the only “available resources” that you could be referring to here are hydrocarbons that we burn for energy. Yes, we mined up much of the metal that’s easy to get to, but we didn’t atomize that metal; it’s going to be much easier to get metal out of the ruins of New York City than it is to get metal out of a vein in the belly of a mountain. And things like forests and herds of animals will come back if civilization goes away.
So the question is whether society can industrialize without easy access to hydrocarbon based energy. And it helps to keep in mind that wind and hydro power are both in fact older than steam power. In China, they were doing some pretty serious metal crafting on a massive scale using hydro power; and the Romans were likewise pseudo-industrialized.
If our planet didn’t have massive stores of hydrocarbons from the Carboniferous, I think it’s quite likely that someone somewhere would have eventually discovered electricity even without steam power, and from there, they already had wind and water wheels that could drive a generator. And eventually, you can make fuel from crops, if you come up with the idea.
In our world, in a post apocalyptic situation, the survivors would have the benefit of knowing that such things are possible, so they’re even more likely to go towards biofuels. A society that never finds hydrocarbons laying around may never think to make corn into fuel, but a society on post apocalyptic Earth would find evidence of internal combustion engines everywhere.
Right. They might never discover coal if all the easily discoverable coal is gone (or if this society evolved on a planet with a geologic history that didn’t allow for the formation of large coal seams) but they would discover charcoal, water wheels, and windmills.
I’m a bit puzzled by how in the movie “Beneath The Planet Of The Apes”, supposedly a civilization-ending thermonuclear war took place– and yet the ruins of New York City still stand, albeit a bit worse for 2000 years of wear:
It’s just artistic license, there’d be nothing significant left after so long. A modern city would be pretty much gone in decades, at most.
I recall reading that the developers of Fallout III asked experts how much would be left 200 years after the apocalypse and the answer was “basically nothing”. So they essentially said “oh well” and decided to entirely ignore that so the setting could have proper post-nuclear ruins anyway.
Way older than steam. A noted Roman use of water power is a big mill near Arles, France: Barbegal aqueduct and mills - Wikipedia. Wind mills were invented in Persia somewhere in the 700-900 A.D. period. Fulling mills, using water power for processing wool, were common in the Medieval period, dating from the late 11th century.
But even after the steam engine was invented, they still used water and wind power for mills. For example, sawmills and grist mills were commonly built near water falls and rapids on the American frontier to take advantage of the water power.
Considering some Roman ruins and roads are still partially intact after 2,000 years, I would be surprised if the basic concrete structures did not remain fairly intact. I would expect steel skyscrapers to start to disintegrate over the hundreds or so years. (Any examples of those old iron age steel structures not maintained over a century or more?)
how much maintenance do they actually do to exterior of structures like the Brooklyn bridge towers, or the exterior of the Empire State building? I would assume failure would happen when the windows fail and water (weathering) gets into the building. How often does window glass fail without the assistance of humans?
Googling, it appears the estimate is that unmaintained skyscrapers would last between fifty to a hundred years (more complicated parts like elevators would fail faster).
And apparently both the Empire State Building and Brooklyn Bridge have undergone major renovation projects.
The question I guess is whether this means “apparently intact”? I would imagine as partial relics several hundred feet tall, they would remain much longer.
I doubt that. They aren’t solid construction of rock or concrete, they are complicated, mostly hollow buildings largely made of (rustable) steel that I’d expect to decay rapidly once their internal components are exposed to the weather.
Babylon stopped functioning as an urban centre between the 2nd century BC and the 7th century CE. Over those 700 years, it gradually declined from a major city to near-total abandonment. Small communities have continued to live in the area, and nearby towns such as Hillah remain inhabited on the historical site.
1300 years later, the ruins of Babylon are still there and archologists explore them from time to time.
Many in this thread seem to be answering “how long till you wouldn’t want to live there” rather than " boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away." The answer to the first is decades, but without being buried by a volcano or swept away by a flood the second is many millenia.
They used different construction methods. Big piles of clay, earth and stone don’t rust. Our taller and lighter buildings are inherently more fragile once they start to break down.
Ran across this as a side note in some news report:
After 60 years of abandonment, definite signs of deterioration. Some building burned a few years ago. Access is forbidden except for serious scientific reasons. However, the brick walls will likely last a few decades or centuries more.
I wonder to what extent we can take examples like the many ruined cathedrals and monasteries (and castles) of Britain. Mortar and concrete likely last better than steel construction.
… but they most certainly have other issues: rain/water/”splash” comes to mind … and quakes … both are notoriously incompatible with clay/earth/stone/adobe building…
That material is mostly used for one reason: it’s FREE … not b/c it is durable in time
source: Al128, who lived in an adobe house 4 or 5 years.
Freeze-thaw cycle is worst in the temperate zones, obviously.
Also, I recall reading a number of classic downtown buildings in one city were rendered effectively derelict when the city removed the central steam plant - without heat, the interior plaster absorbed condensation in the cold months and became spongy. It wasn’t worth installing new boliers in a hundred-year-old building.
