Is it possible that if every human but 50 people, just 50 regular everday working citizens of earth, up and vanished, that all knowledge and evidence of us would disappear?

If just 50 everyday people survive, would it be possible to keep culture and language, inventions, math, cars, anything you can think of... or would we be reduced to our more primeval instincts and eventually revolve into something else.

Could 1million or 2 or 10million years completely and utterly annihilate any evidence of an advanced civilization?

For instance, If I built a 10ft tall statue in the middle of New York city made of steal, titanium, and depleated uranium, could I still see it in 5million or 10million years?


Just a thought,
Tristan:)

Depending on the scenario...
Any event cataclysmic enough to reduce the population from 6.3 billion to 50 would likley put an end to civilization.

Such a change would have unfathomable consequences. There is no way to even make an educated guess about the outcome.

Is 50 even enough to have sustainable genetic variety?

On the topic of preservation of our cuture, science etc... What is the best material/technique for recording information -- some combination of stone writing and oral tradition? Will our cities of metal and glass be reduced to piles of sand and corrosion under the pressure of time? Our data storage will likely be unreadable in 50-100 years. Maybe we should dust off the old chisle and start commiting more works to stone. Maybe we should put the human genome or some other recent work in stone format just for fun (guess it would need to be a pretty big monument - heh).

What, out of the stuff we have made in the last century, will survive for as long as the pyrimids have?

But even if all traces of humanity dissapear and some form of intelligent life would emerge again in another few million years or so, he is likely to make very remarkable discoveries somewhere, the last trace of humanity.

What? Space junk?

Speaking of which, how much of it will stay in orbit indefinitely?

50 people I would think definitely not. I doubt anyone could find 50 people who, together, could name out all the countries of the world even. Culture would be washed down the drain as not many people have been everywhere around the world. There are people that travel alot but not many can say they've been to city A, B, C, D, E, etc... And that's a good point MFrobotH43D, I didn't even think about genetic diversity.

I think you meant 50 as an exaggeration, but if there were a limited amount of people that somehow grouped together, they would certainly be able to survive for a good amount of time. This all depends on if buildings and structures survived whatever event had occured.... They could survive inside a grocery store for countless years. Canned foods have shelf-lives of atleast 5 years, I'm guessing.

In regards to genetic diversity, there would be some fucked up kids, but great intelligence is not needed in that situation. 30,000 species die every year, so I guess I wouldn't be surprised if we're next.

Originally posted by Slacker47
I think you meant 50 as an exaggeration, but if there were a limited amount of people that somehow grouped together, they would certainly be able to survive for a good amount of time. This all depends on if buildings and structures survived whatever event had occured.... They could survive inside a grocery store for countless years. Canned foods have shelf-lives of atleast 5 years, I'm guessing.

In regards to genetic diversity, there would be some fucked up kids, but great intelligence is not needed in that situation. 30,000 species die every year, so I guess I wouldn't be surprised if we're next.

there are always caves, and building structures out of trees/rocks, etc is not that difficult.

and interbredding makes no difference in terms of stupidity- a low level of ginetic diversity only increases the chance of receiving two copies of a recesive inherited desiese. Cheetas do just fine with nearly identical genes in every member of the species. If you had 50 people left, and they were all healthy individuals, you're fine. the reproduction of such a small core genetic group would not be a problem. if 20 of those individules had some genetic disorder, then the chances of their offspring displaying traits of those disorders is higher. however "genetic disorders" suddenly become "evolution" if they happen to help the individual survive. Sickle cell enemia may be a life threatening disease, but it will keep you from dying of maleria.


I'd say that if people remain on the planet, human culture will still live in its effects on those who survive. even if all 50 people still alive get amnesia, they would still be able to cut trees, make simple jewellery/cloths. There is a good chance that bows and arrows would be burned into their minds from years of cowboys and indian movies that they would be able to "invent" the bow and arrow system within one generation.

I guess it depends on which 50 people you get. if these people know the outdoors, and are genetically healthy, things should take off, though the culture that would exsist for them would be vastlky different from any culture before it. a mixture of eath religion and modern-day medicine and technology. If the people you get are pure city dwellers, and have no clue as to planting an ear of corn, they may be dead within a few months, after canabalism reduced their numbers enought o prevent any sort of successful re-introduction of the species.

all IMO, as always