Word of mouth. Taboo. Societal conciousness is a pretty strong thing. That and if some adventurous kids decide to violate taboo they end up getting (radiation) sick(ness).
This is assuming that technological society breaks down and that we care about degenerate humans. If technology remains static or advances, I'm sure those people would be able to (eventually) figure out to stay away from a site.
Then again, there's the whole Chernobyl thing where the wildlife is coming back because the humans are gone - and they are suffering (well, under extreme selective pressure in addition to accelerated mutation rate) from the radioactivity. posted by porpoise at 7:36 PM on May 5, 2006
Personally, I think the time honored practice of letting the future take care of itself is the best bet. So long as we don't make concentrations of hazardous wastes so egregious that the dumps themselves expose high levels of hazardous contents back into the biosphere in some future time, we've done our share to protect the future. If people of the future go digging, they have to protect themselves, as do we when we go digging in archeological sites. posted by paulsc at 7:44 PM on May 5, 2006
I wouldn't create anything that was toxic 10,000 years in the futu--- Oh wait. This was actually discussed a week or so ago on the blue. kliuless found theselinks, eriko and wilful found this link [PDF] about the WIPP. posted by salvia at 8:03 PM on May 5, 2006
I like the "Landscape of Thorns," myself. posted by salvia at 8:06 PM on May 5, 2006
Create a large, noticeable object, such as an enormous pyramid. Put it in the forbidden zone. Then, outside the forbidden zone, have signs depicting a man standing next to that pyramid, and his weiner has fallen off. Mission accomplished. posted by Hildago at 8:08 PM on May 5, 2006
Hildago: But what if man has evolved past having a weiner?
Ditto salvia, I think. posted by Zozo at 8:10 PM on May 5, 2006
The plans described in the article sound as if they could easily be mistaken for a church, right down to the depictions of human suffering. Careful development of the site demonstrating massive human effort seems like exactly the wrong way to get someplace to remain desolate. posted by desuetude at 8:16 PM on May 5, 2006
Combine pictographs containing scientific principles (like the basic atomic chemistry of the substances involved) with creepy-looking pictographs of horrible things happening to people who dig there. That way, a scientific society would know why the place is bad, not just "thought cursed by the natives", and a superstitious society would be throughly spooked.
I'd fill the site with a material that's powerfully, acutely toxic. Maybe strongly radioactive, even. You might kill a few future-people, but the rest would stay away. posted by mr_roboto at 8:21 PM on May 5, 2006
From the article you linked to, regarding information rooms wherein the toxic state of the site is described:
Three information rooms would archive detailed drawings of WIPP's chambers and the physics of its hazards on stone tablets. They would also provide a world map showing all other known waste repositories and a star chart to calculate the year the site was sealed.
One such room would stand in the center of the site. Another would be buried inside the berm, its only entrance a 2-foot hole to inhibit theft of the tablets, sealed with a 1,600-pound stone plug. The third room would be off site — perhaps inside the nearby Carlsbad Caverns.
Not exactly user-friendly, is it? Why seal such an important room? I was reading the previous stuff and thinking "awesome, a star chart, cool!" Then they ruined it. posted by odinsdream at 8:24 PM on May 5, 2006
The major problem is not the signs.
It is that we don't know how to convey trust.
If you don't "believe" the signs, it is impossible to transmit a difference between "this place is forbidden because it's poisonous" from "this place is forbidden because there is a treasure hidden inside."
If this is for a novel, I agree with porpoise. The only way to do it is with people. If this is for an actual problem, like nuclear waste, there is also the possiblity that any problem of this kind could be solved in a few decades. posted by bru at 8:33 PM on May 5, 2006
I wouldn't create anything that was toxic 10,000 years in the futu
That's a bit silly, since lots of inorganic toxins will remain toxic forever (or until someone throws them into an industrial-scale elemental transmuter, once we get around to inventing those).
My own answer: I wouldn't use any kind of warning. I'd just make it hard enough to get into that only industrialized civilizations would be able to get into it, and hope that any industrialized civilization would recognize the toxicity before any serious harm was done. posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:42 PM on May 5, 2006
I'll go first. posted by dmd at 8:48 PM on May 5, 2006
Zozo: Then obviously, man has nothing to live for and should venture into the hazardous site. posted by ruevian at 10:09 PM on May 5, 2006
I wouldn't create anything that was toxic 10,000 years in the future
Like plastic?
I'd put human bones and lots of them. That'll keep most people away. posted by fshgrl at 10:34 PM on May 5, 2006
The oral tradition is the only thing that'll ever work.
Also, did this paragraph bother anyone else?
"To future generations, warnings about Nelson's dump may seem as impenetrable as the 600-year-old "Canterbury Tales" are for all but a few scholars today."
I mean, it's tricky reading, but hardly impenetrable. Goodness. posted by bubukaba at 12:31 AM on May 6, 2006
Wow, this was fascinating. Should have been an FPP. posted by number9dream at 12:39 AM on May 6, 2006
I'd put human bones and lots of them. That'll keep most people away.
Except anthrolpologists and treasure hunters.
I'd do nothing, personally. Anything that's toxic to man will scientifically most likely still be toxic to man in 10,000 years time. Thus you just have to wait for it to be rediscovered, then 'off' a few people. Either we'll be technologically adept enough to figure out, "Hey, radiation. Let's get the hell out of here," or we'll be scientifically backwards and run away like the scared apes we are, passing along the warning through grunts and hand gestures. Both accomplish the same result. posted by Civil_Disobedient at 1:15 AM on May 6, 2006
Twenty-Foot High, Soloar-Powered, Electrified Steel Fences. With Spikes. posted by sophist at 4:10 AM on May 6, 2006
The sentiments expressed above seem to ring true. No matter what you do, there will be some guy who says "Screw this, I am gonna check out what over there". You are gonna lose a few people. You do your best, and hope tht they figure it out. It is highly unlikely that one nuclear waste dump site is going to eradicate the human population, or even kill/mutate more than a few dozen if we have already managed to survive another 10,000 years.
Also: the oral tradition is a horrible idea. Ever play telephone? Yeah, exactly. The oral tradition is the one way you can gaurantee it will become the fabled land of mythical enchantment and fabulous treasure. It will probably be passed down as the home of the gods or something. You will have all the strongest, most courageos men braving my spiked electric wall in order to get in there. I gaurantee it. posted by sophist at 4:16 AM on May 6, 2006
10000 year old oral tradition? Not going to happen. How many 10000 year old oral traditions are you familiar with? posted by malp at 5:30 AM on May 6, 2006
Related to the idea of an oral/linguistic approach, James Conrad wrote a decent novel about a competition to include a poem in the materials used to ward people away from Yucca Mountain: Making Love to the Minor Poets of Chicago. posted by j-dawg at 7:26 AM on May 6, 2006
I'd start a religion where the adherants all pray facing the thing / place and believe that only members of that religion can go near it, but that 'it' is way too sacred to actually open or enter. posted by wackybrit at 7:55 AM on May 6, 2006
How many 10000 year old oral traditions are you familiar with?
This is a tricky (and interesting) question.
If it means: "How many oral traditions that have been transmitted to you orally are you familiar with?", the answer is: none. All the oral traditions I know about have reached me through books, magazines or the web.
If it means: "How many oral traditions have survived through another mean or a combination of other means?", the answer is: a lot. Just count all the Creation myths: for all we know, some of them could be 30 or 50 000 years old or more.
When some of us say that "people" are the best way to transmit a warning message, it's pretty obvious that it means "people and all their available media", not "people naked and having lost all ability to store and transmit information". This is more or less the same scenario as: the human race leaves the Earth, how can we warn any future intelligence that could emerge from the biosphere through another round of evolution? Those, human or not, can only learn by dying and dying until they learn to store and transmit information. Then, we are back to square one: people and all their available media. posted by bru at 9:46 AM on May 6, 2006
wouldn't just burying it really deep and putting no markers whatsoever around it work? posted by grex at 10:05 AM on May 6, 2006
Park a solar-powered Honda CRX boom car in the middle of it, with Popozao on 11. posted by jimmythefish at 10:33 AM on May 6, 2006
there is apparently oil nearby, so perhaps the no-marker idea isn't so great. posted by reverendX at 10:45 AM on May 6, 2006
I would surround or enclose the very toxic, concentrated stuff with stuff that is somewhat less toxic and well-protected. And not mark it. That way, plunderers get the idea before they release the really terrible stuff. posted by furiousthought at 12:36 PM on May 6, 2006
It would sem to me that what ever you do the information has to translated into a mathmatical format--I have no idea how to do that but I think words will fail as will any sinage. I agree with the poster that whet ever you do someone is likely to fool with it, get sick/die and then reinforce the message. Interesting theoretical and practical problem. posted by rmhsinc at 12:52 PM on May 6, 2006
I agree with the other sentiments that no matter what we do, there will be some people that will scoff at any warning and will explore. Exploration is one of our strongest drives.
I think the the star charts and pictographs are about as good as we can do... and furiousthought's idea of putting the super-nasty stuff behind merely lethal things is a good one.
I also think that making sure that people that get past a certain point will die fairly soon would be a good idea, to make it much less likely that they'll be able to bring anything deadly out with them.
If someone chooses to ignore the warning signs, then the goal is no longer to protect that person, but to protect everyone ELSE. Killing explorers swiftly and efficiently would likely be a good way to accomplish that. posted by Malor at 12:59 PM on May 6, 2006
Lots of people are saying that the best warning will be when one or two people of that generation die. I'm not sure, but I doubt the radiation would kill someone that fast. (Anyone know?) What if everyone has used it as house paint or something before people start dying out?
Maybe the best thing to do would be to put something even more immediately poisonous in a thin layer all around it? Maybe not even toxic, maybe just really sickening. Or rig a bunch of booby traps with spears and boulders! ;) posted by salvia at 4:54 PM on May 6, 2006
How about something which smells really terrible in very low concentrations, resists degradation by ordinary means, and, when absorbed by humans in small, not very toxic quantities, as it is fairly easily is, makes the breath and sweat abhorrent?
I am thinking of Selenium and a cocktail of its highly odiferous compounds.... posted by jamjam at 5:32 PM on May 6, 2006
This whole question seems predicated on the vision of a primitive post-Apocolyptic future with no continuity of knowledge or civilization, when the truth of the matter is that the strength, availability, and continuity of information are almost without doubt going to increase and accelerate to the point where it's laughable that the only way this hypothetical future race of morons can figure out where the toxic waste is, is by some crude hieroglyphs. I am willing to bet a couple of future lives over spending millions in life-saving resources today, that the location of all the world's ancient and modern hazardous sites will be very simple to access information in the extreme future. posted by dgaicun at 8:45 PM on May 6, 2006
PS - can't we just nuke nuclear waste, or throw it into lava? Incinerate it entirely? Jet it into the sun? Kill it like the T-1000? posted by dgaicun at 8:55 PM on May 6, 2006
I would look around at examples of messages from 10,000 years ago, and only include ideas that worked.
There being none, I would move on with a different plan that did not include the necessity of communicating with people 10,000 years in the future. posted by ikkyu2 at 9:16 PM on May 6, 2006
But 10,000 years ago and 10,000 years in the future are not equal. One is basically before the beginning of recorded history, the other is the endpoint of massively accelerated history. I mean even the short period 1961-1980 is hardly comparable to the period 1981-2000, in terms of the fidelity, comprehensiveness, accessibility and organization of historical knowledge.
The bottom line is this, there are a lot of ways to allocate current resources to hypothetically save lives - but even doing it right today is a crapshoot. The wisest route is to maximize uncertainty as much as possible with these resources. Which means reinforcing vulnerable levees that scientists are warning us about is a more worthwhile and certain risk to pay attention to than sci-fi hypotheticals about protecting cave idiots in the year 9 billion.
The best assumption is that the future will not be some cut-off dark age but that the records of civilization are going to gain greater and greater continuity. And even if this weren't true, any resources spent to "protect" people living in extremely speculative futures, are being highly misallocated. posted by dgaicun at 1:03 AM on May 7, 2006
I mean, it's tricky reading, but hardly impenetrable. Goodness.
That freaked me out too. Um, I read the original in high school, for pete's sake. Yeah, the edition was footnoted, but then again, I wasn't a "scholar" either. posted by desuetude at 3:28 PM on May 7, 2006
Glaciers. Lots of them. Bury the whole planet in ice. posted by joelf at 5:17 PM on May 15, 2006
None of those plans would keep me from exploring further. The only thing that might would be some skeletons strewn across the entrance -- and if those were too dusty, I'd still go in! The linked plans look exciting and easily accessible, and I'm sure future generations will still be susceptible to good, old-fashioned curiosity. posted by thejoshu at 8:11 AM on November 17, 2006
« Older
How do I convert documents fro...
| I spilled beer on a book......
Newer »
Subscribe
This is assuming that technological society breaks down and that we care about degenerate humans. If technology remains static or advances, I'm sure those people would be able to (eventually) figure out to stay away from a site.
Then again, there's the whole Chernobyl thing where the wildlife is coming back because the humans are gone - and they are suffering (well, under extreme selective pressure in addition to accelerated mutation rate) from the radioactivity.
posted by porpoise at 7:36 PM on May 5, 2006