I saw the trailer for “The Road” the other day, and started thinking. The book and I assume the movie would have an unspecified disaster kill all life on earth, except for a few humans. Nothing else lives or grows - no animals, no grass, trees, vegetation, not even weeds and everything in the sea is dead. The air itself is screwed up with ash and clouds and almost constant rain. My question is this - Without any living vegetation on land or in the sea, how long would there be a liveable, breathable atmosphere? Not counting the other effects of the unknown disaster.
Judging from the trailer, it looks like there are still trees and weeds left. There appear to be scenes where they’re walking through the woods.
I think they’re dead though.
My WAG would be a super long time. The atmosphere is huge, especially compared to the tiny fraction of people that are still alive. Starvation would be a much bigger concern.
The book makes no sense. This mysterious disaster killed every living being except humans. Really, including our intestinal bacteria? With no other living beings left, they’re going to die of starvation anyway, and that will happen faster than running out of oxygen. This is one of those books (and presumably movies) where you have to accept the ridiculous premises or just give up on it from the start. Among other things, what conceivable disaster could kill everything except humans?
Early in the book there’s a reference to a bag of cooked rice “already starting to ferment,” so some microbial life is still around. Plus there’s also a dog, so it isn’t literally all uni/multicellular life that’s been wiped out.
Quick question - have you read the book? I don’t mean that in a condescending way either. I am really interested. The reason I ask is that, to me, the catastrophe is entirely beside the point. The book is an allegory about the father-son dynamic that cannot be read literally. The catastrophe is a mere device (call it a “ridiculous premise” if you must) to facilitate that allegory.
I must say that I think the movie will be terrible. I love the book (always read it in one sitting), but I have no idea how you could translate such a thing without turning it into an Armageddon-lite piece of trash.
ETA: to the OP, I have no idea. Sorry for the hijack.
Eh? It killed most of everything. Including humans.
The book spent zero time explaining the disaster and never made such claim. The main characters have no idea who’s been killed, what’s still living, what caused it.
All they know is that they’ve been living in a post apocolyptic setting for a number of years and are moving on foot hoping to find who knows what. I have no idea where people are getting this “it killed all life on earth except people” bit.
Because nowhere in the book do they see any other living being, animal or vegetable, and everything anyone eats is either food from before the apocalypse, or each other.
Anyway, I have no problem with this. It’s science fiction at its purest: make one assumption, no matter how unlikely or outlandish, and extrapolate from there.
In their general vicinity, yes. But they have no idea what else is going on in the world. For all they know the US is dead and quarantined but the rest of the world is still buzzing along just fine.
I haven’t read the book, but the Wikipedia article mentions someone cooking a baby over a fire, so human sex and reproduction still seem to be working fine, at least up to the past year or so. By extension, other mammals/vertebrates would be reproducing, somewhere.
But that’s missing the point. The book raises, and answers, the question: how would humanity as a whole, and a father and son in particular, react if everything except for humans died? Saying “that can’t be” is just arguing with a hypothetical question.
In a way, it’s like *Groundhog Day. * Do you really want to know how or why Bill Murray got caught in a time loop, or do you want to see what he does next?
Science fiction isn’t about science, it’s about possibilities.
Was there a dog in the book? I don’t recall that. It seems like a dog wouldn’t last long around a bunch of starving humans.
I read this book all in one sitting, flying home one day (my second flight was delayed so I had lots of time). I remember crying on the airplane at the end.
Maybe I need to reread the book, but the two big vibes I got was “Nuclear Winter” and “The World itself it dying as a result”.
That was more then sufficient for me.
Yes, there is a dog in the book.
These days SF seems to be about which monsters we’ll be eaten by; or which natural or manmade disaster will result in our roasting babies and murdering each other over scavenged cans of food in the rubble of the supermarkets–if the cause of the apocalypse is even mentioned. The SF of more hopeful possible futures seems to be a thing of the past.
Huh? That’s patently not true. They encounter plenty of other people in the book, as well as the aforementioned dog. Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you’re saying.
What about the dog, the old man, the people they find, the bad guys they’re avoiding, the good guys at the end, and The Man’s hope that there will be fish in the ocean when they reach it?
This is a more cynical age. To think of it another way, we reached the future and it kinda sucks.
I agree. That’s why my response was :rolleyes: when I saw on the wikipedia article that it’s hailed by some as a great environmental book.
The cast list on imdb gives me hope, just reading the character names. I think it’ll be faithful to the book based on that.