'Super Smash Bros' Community Prays That This 'Dating App For Smashers' Is Not Real
-
-
You Will Never Regret Clicking On This Entry, Beautiful Cabin Crew, Scarlett Johansson -
Why Are People Saying President Biden Soiled Himself At Normandy? The Viral Allegations, Video And Memes Explained -
What's The '100 Faces' Meme? The Viral Redraw Trend From Twitter Explained -
.jpg "Part 3 Of Viral 'Zoom Court Hearing' Story Reveals That Corey Harris Never Had A License At All")
Part 3 Of Viral 'Zoom Court Hearing' Story Reveals That Corey Harris Never Had A License At All
![File: sci-fi-art-of-chris-drysdale-4.jpg (111 KB, 1024x576) O Anonymous 07/28/19(Sun)17:34:41 No.67510490 Archived What would the geological strata of a 10000-year old industrial world be like assuming the inhabitants gave zero f---- about the environment. So far I have concrete, industrial slag, and rusted metal, but more is good. Also, general discussion of tabletop things to do in such a setting is encouraged. O Anonymous 07/28/19(Sun)17:36:08 No.67510516 >> >>67510490 Acidified soil which is also polluted by heavy metals on which almost nothing grows. O Anonymous 07/28/19(Sun)17:51:16 No.67510753 >>67510490 You could have the bacteria and simple organisms which can survive on such toxic fare form huge slimy "fields" of matted biofilm. If the PCs investigate further, they may see miniscule organisms crawling and slithering through the stinking slime. Give the impression that although life is recovering, the new ecosystem is not going to be one favorable for human ( If the PCs are human) colonization. O Anonymous 07/28/19(Sun)19:55:13 No.67512676 I'm a geologist, and I've thought about this quite a lot. You would likely find a planetwide stratum highly enriched in heavy metals, especially well preserved in lacustrine and coastal marine sediments, which would also contain large amounts of preserved trash; especially glass, stainless steel and some plastics, would would all still be kicking around after that time. 10ky isn't enough time to form rock, so they would all be as unconsolidated sediments and soils. Cities would have a highly peculiar geology, consisting of geometrically arranged hummocky hills probably grassed over, with the hills consisting of concrete with the presence of iron-rich minerals and, depending on the building, trace metals like tellurium, neodymium, gold etc. from electronics and so on divided by strips of tar that are buried roads. Fragments of well-built tunnel networks would survive, those that are not caved in would be either crumbling or filled with water and sediment depending on the height of the water table, their construction and the surrounding geology. Around and especially downwind of the cities would see very high amounts of heavy metal and toxic pollutants, provided they haven't been leached out by rain. Nuclear facilities would also be very identifiable thanks to their radioactive pollution slick and concentration, and many containment structures would still survive thanks to being massive edifices. Rubbish dumps would turn into goldmines for artifacts, and many would be very well preserved thanks to the anoxic conditions inside the trash heaps. Some structures, especially large ones of concrete and stone, would survive. I'm talking about hydro dams, bridge pillars, monuments and the sort of large edifice that would resist erosion. Pure concrete would survive better than reinforced concrete, since steel rebar has a tendency to swell as it rusts and crack the concrete. O Anonymous 07/28/19(Sun)19:56:19 No.67512689 >>67512676 Mines would also be very well preserved, with quarries appearing nearly exactly as they were left. Underground networks would also probably be still around, but crumbling supports would render many highly unstable and under the water table some may completely fill with sediment and mineral deposits (given long enough this would lithify and form a perfect underground cast of the tunnel network). This also goes for mountain transport tunnels. O Anonymous 07/28/19(Sun)21:30:25 No.67513869 File: 3c2bf4d8673ae762d33dd3f2a(...).jpg (86 KB, 550x733) >>67510490 Not the geological strata, but I wouldn't mind commenting on the environmental conditions a bit: First and foremost conditions would be arid, uncomfortable, and toxic, with much of the world desertified or otherwise turned into a kind of wasteland of harsh toxic winds, rust storms, dust devils, acid rain storms, with most freshwater available being either acidic or extremely toxic due to industrial runoff and other contaminates. >Birds are basically extinct. Most if not all birds would be extinct. Much like a Canary in a coal mine their delicate lungs and sensitive respiratory systems would not be able to withstand or adapt in time to the heavily polluted air of this industrial waste-world. There species most likely to persist would be the ones we're already accustomed to: Pigeons, Sparrows, Carrion Birds, but even these birds would be very rare, few in number, with their entire species' health and reproduction constantly compromised by this environment. >Rat world Every mammal larger than a Dog would be extinct, but the ones that did survive would carry on and if anything thrive as they've always done during such dramatic extinction events. Creatures like Rats, Mice, Shrews, Moles, Gophers, Rabbits, and other rodents & burrowing creatures would find this meager world abundant in resources and lacking in predators. They would simply be everywhere: subterranean animals can survive effortlessly in high carbon-dioxide and low oxygen environments, combined with their fast rate of reproduction would allow them to easily adapt, evolve, and overcome any obstacle this rust world threw at them. Still, though, there would also be Canines, Goats, Hogs... Maybe Bears? Omnivorous generalists would be at an advantage, but most large animals would find it difficult to find sufficient sustenance or take too long to mature and reproduce before they succumb to pollutants. O Anonymous 07/28/19(Sun)22:04:35 No.67514293 File: Oa678daae67232420ddc21a4d(...).jpg (86 KB, 1024x597) >>67513869 >Spots of greenery. Vegetation would continue to grow and the world would remain greener than most people would expect it to be as a diversity of species would be more than capable of safely growing in toxic & polluted conditions due to remediation techniques, but the arid and hostile weather conditions and the presence of acid rain would limit really abundant, rich, greenery and growth... Most of this vegetation would be immediately toxic and inedible to people and would need to be washed and processed. Trees would be exceedingly rare; replaced by scrubs, shrubs, bushes, succulents, grasses, lichens, moss, and other foliage that can withstand not just the lack of proper rainfall, but keep from being torn apart by the rust winds. Though, most places would often simply be too wind-swept, too hard of earth, and too 'sanitized' (lacking in rich earth) to sustain vegetation. >Creeping things. The vast majority of Insects would largely not give a single s---, but an overwhelming spectrum of specialized insects would go extinct from the absence of the unique resources and ecosystems they dependent upon as opposed to the polluted biosphere. I highly doubt any Bees, Butterflies, Moths, and most Wasps wouldn't make it, but certain Beetles, Flies, Roaches, Mosquitos, Worms, and the like would adapt, overcome, and carry on as usual. By the 10,000 year mark Insects would be carrying on as if nothing happened. O Anonymous 07/28/19(Sun)22:29:32 No.67514584 File: eba179ce56f965fb406ffcd8f(...).jpg (159 KB, 768x511) >>67514293 >Muddy shallow oceans: rich with 'life'. Despite this worlds oceans drying out to shallow seas they would still contain a rich, versatile, depth of marine life and be home to 90-97% of the polluted worlds life. To the point where people and creatures living by what remained of the muddy, polluted, plastic covered seas would still fare quite well compared to the people and creatures living in the interior wastelands. The other irony is that these shallow seas would allow for more sunlight to breach through the depths and encourage the development of more reefs, kelp forests, and 'land' for other marine organisms to flourish despite the conditions. Indeed, the only 'real' threat faced by the remaining oceans would be the suppressive, smothering, waves of plastic that would block the sun and choke creatures. Most heavy metal pollutants and industrial run-off would give rise to algae blooms and act as vital fertilizer and nutrients to Scum, Algae, and other simple organisms. These in turn provide ample sustenance for bottom feeders and combined with the far warmer waters would give rise to increase size, fertility, and populations of shellfish: Mussels, Lobsters, Crabs, etc.. These creatures would be, again, toxic, due to pollution, but they'd still be an important food source. Everything else in the ocean would be hit or miss depending on how many species were left untouched as no threat is greater to the ocean than overfishing. Most marine mammals & seabirds would not survive these harsh conditions (Penguins and small Baleen Whales might ironically persist?), but fish would be able to repopulate, survive, adapt, re-fill niches, and even SWELL in numbers so long as they weren't eaten before the collapse. O Anonymous 07/28/19(Sun)23:50:07 No.67515469 No standing or running freshwater would be safe or trustworthy: it would ALL be contaminated by the heavily polluted world's plastics, heavy metals, and various other noxious pollutants- some sources of water wouldn't even be water but horrible burning pools of acid. The only safe source of moisture would be from acid rain and even then it wouldn't be 'truly' safe; the LEAST safe source would be ground water, as it'd be completely and totally saturated in the absolute worst contaminates. This is a world devoid of wells. Many freshwater biomes would be highly polluted, dangerous, muddy cesspools devoid of any palatable life; giving off noxious fumes that alone would dissuade other creatures from drinking from them, never mind some of them in fact being horrifying pools of flesh-melting acid. Despite such adversity there would still be Scum, Algae, and dense clouds of Microbes, all supped on by seemingly invincible and now ridiculously plentiful Minnows (progressively getting larger and larger. Pan-sized Killifish would not be uncommon). Running rivers would fare 'slightly' better, but they'd still be home to much the same- only just clean enough to house Catfish, toxic Shellfish, and fish capable of breathing air. There would be no Frogs, no Newts; all amphibians would be extinct, with intrepid air-breathing fish aggressively taking over their now empty niche. O Anonymous 07/29/19(Mon)02:34:19 No.67517474 First and foremost: I don't think people would be living in scavenged, ugly, derelict, improvised, shanty towns, I just don't. I also don't think you're ever going to see anybody living out in the open. This polluted world is going to not just dominated by hot, arid, toxic wastelands, but it's also going to come with all the weather conditions: acidic rains that eat through and corrode most metal or wood structures, and massive, extremely powerful, noxious dust storms filled with rust, pollutants, and even radioactive debris. Most people (depending on their technological levels) are either going to be nomadic (actively fleeing from the weather), living underground, or in specific terrain that otherwise blocks the wind or keeps them secluded from the worst conditions. Imagine the dust bowl, but now it burns, it can make you sick, and it's got enough momentum to shave you. | think people are going to recycle what's available and use it to make 'new' stuff for themselves: buildings out of clay, straw, brick, and mortar, metal melted down and reforged into higher quality tools, weapons, & armor, vehicles and technology either fixed or refurbished into 'new' devices to lengthen their lifespan. Nothing is going to be made out of wood. Wood is gone. Technology, though, can be whatever you want it to be. I'd imagine there'd be the full spectrum: people living in technologically advanced communities, ignoring the problems outside as they live in unfathomably luxury and plot their next step into space. People living in 'fairly' developed mixed medieval-modern 'Nausicaa' style countries or kingdoms that are naturally protected from the worst weather- relying on swords, guns, and tanks to defend their highly sought after land, where you've got pick up trucks & radios, but your military still wears suits of armor. Finally, you may even have just.. straight up ooga booga not!larping, legitimately f------ ignorant tribal communities. O Anonymous 07/29/19(Mon)14:28:23 No.67524582 File: post-apoc london.jpg (289 KB, 1920x1080) >>67517474 >>67515469 I don't know if you're still here (and this is great stuff btw), but seeing as you mention how utterly rekt the saturated ground would be in terms of contaminants, I'm wondering how that would affect the big classic response to apocalyptic catastrophes - digging a big hole and building a bunker in it. Does that plan still hold up when the earth is toxic as hell? O Anonymous 07/29/19(Mon)19:00:06 No.67529247 >>67524582 >Does that plan still hold up when the earth is toxic as hell? Soft yes. Even though the ground is just completely saturated a Bunker would still function more or less the same because a 'good' Bunker would be air-tight, lead walls, protected from outside contaminants both from above and below. The only issue here is you wouldn't have the advantage of things like ground water, but if you've got a BUNKER, Bunker than you probably already have some sort of system going on. Even less-than-air-tight Bunkers would still be a thing in this world despite the health-risks simply because living in a dry pit of noxious materials is better than standing out in the open and getting sand-blasted down by the radioactive rust storms that blow over everything and everyone. This is also just something to think about, but a Bunker is usually implemented for apocalyptic situations where there's an immediate 'doomsday', but conditions are 'eventually' expected to improve: the fallout settles, society rebuilds itself, you maybe crawl out after 10 years and see what's up. This isn't going to be the case for Trash World. Our polluted world has seen 10,000 years of pollution (and industrial/technological development) and it's going to be a s--- hole for functionally forever, like, we're talking longer than 30,000 years, but maybe less time than 3 million? You, your kids, your grandkids, basically everyone 'forever' would only ever know garbage. O Anonymous 07/30/19(Tue)22:36:09 No.67549523 File: algae-beach[1].jpg (112 KB, 350x250) >>67517474 Lets talk about what there is to eat. Every plant is going to be toxic or 'immediately' inedible in some way or another, lets just address that right now. EVERYTHING is going to need to be washed thoroughly and then soaked in water for days before it becomes edible as ALL the plants (I think the term is remediation?) are going to store the various hazardous materials they're exposed to on a daily basis in their leaves and roots. Most people forced to live 'outdoors' or otherwise exposed are going to be farming a variety of starchy root vegetable. Gone are the days long growing periods and large exposed fields: conventional agriculture is going to be largely impractical or impossible due to the dust storms, the heat, and ironically not due to the pollution in the soil or the noxious atmosphere (still a problem, but being torn apart by wind is something most plants would never adapt too). The people with access or ingenuity to build indoor greenhouses and hydroponics would generate far better table fare as our polluted world would be FILLED with the ingredients for excellent fertilizer: collect soil, seave out the plastic, rinse and mix with water, if it's too dry add human/animal waste- you now have excellent (if radioactive) fertilizer rich in all manner of minerals & nutrients. Corn, beans, peas and grapes are big on this filthy metal-infused kind of dirt, but I think thin-rooted leafy vegetables don't mind it either? Again, wash everything. Though, algae replace grain. Algae would be 'the' food. Algae thrives in polluted waters, algae is a complete protein/provides ample nourishment, algae has a unique chemical agent in it that bonds with heavy metals and acts as an effective long-term treatment for poisoning, algae can also be used to make -safe- cooking oil (which would be rare) as well as biofuel for machines. Roasted, dried, or raw, algae also retains most of it's nutrients no matter what you do with it. O Anonymous 07/30/19(Tue)23:27:52 No.67550111 File: graphics-ssf_a-labella-_1(...).jpg (65 KB, 1200x675) >>67549523 Algae would also be an excellent source of animal feed and a decent segway into what most, like, 80% of people would actually be eating: meat. Agriculture is impractical, but meat would be the treat to eat in trash world. Rats, lizards, shrews, voles, moles, (admittingly) sickly deer, goats & small pigs, and a rich persistent supply of ever-present insects would all still be stubbornly persisting and therefor eatable. The great benefit of meat in this hazardous world is that it converts the paltry, inedible, hazardous, and often toxic plant life into more nutritious and far more palatable flesh. The animals that remain are going to adapt, evolve, and overcome the obstacles of this polluted world far faster than humans will: short life spans, high birth rates, and unlike plants they'll evolve ways to diffuse or 'remove' the hazardous contaminants instead of diffusing or moving them around in their bodies.. That and milk. From goats. Mostly. Rat & worm farms, goat herds, and people heading out with a shovel to turn over rocks or dig out the burrows of some tasty gopher would be the 'norm'. Seafood and even fish is still going to be on the menu as well. Shellfish (including Crustaceans) would be abundant and a reliable source of food, but would have to washed and rinsed thoroughly as they'd be loaded with pollutants that don't bother 'them', but would make a human terribly sick. Saltwater fish would be fair better than land animals, but worse than shellfish. Overall some things wouldn't change and you'd still see large populations congregating in maritime communities to fish the plastic-choked waters of this garbage world. There'd even be a scant few freshwater fish actively -thriving- because they were willing to put up with toxic environments in the first place just to survive and now their unique niche biome is EVERYWHERE. Provided people figured out a safe way to fish flammable waters, you could sup on some decent pan-sized fish.](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/list/002/186/865/96b.png "Post-Industrial Wasteland Ecology and Geography Worldbuilding")
Top Comments
Soup King
Feb 04, 2021 at 07:25AM EST in reply to
Kommando_Kaijin
Feb 03, 2021 at 09:07PM EST