House of Bears


With all the unpleasant news that consistently invades our world, every so often a story emerges that is so fun and interesting that it momentarily shuts out all the ugliness.

I came across one of these stories (with photos) this morning and hope you will enjoy it as much as I did.

Polar Bears move into abandoned Artic weather station

At the end of the article, the author made the following statement. Do you agree?

I think that sooner or later all human-made things on Earth will cease to exist – buildings, cars and computers will all meet their end. But life is eternal.

P.S. Before you answer, be sure to read why he says this.

Image by calluna628 from Pixabay

8 thoughts on “House of Bears

  1. Hello Nan. The point or two points the author was trying to make at the end are in conflict with each other, IMO. If mankind is gone then we will take the bears with us. If mankind survives and continues population growth as we have, the bears won’t have any abandoned homes to move into even if we do manage not to kill them off. I do loves the photos and wish the bears the very best. Until they learn to go on comment sections and spout maga talking points. 😜😲😀😁😉

    Liked by 3 people

    • Read his comment again … he’s not saying humans will cease to exist, but rather, human-made things on Earth will cease to exist.

      Although the natural assumption would be that one would lead to the other, as a wildlife photographer, I think he was making a different point.

      Liked by 1 person

      • But it’s rare for us to simply abandon a structure.

        Take an old convenience store on the corner. It closes down and for whatever reason no new business moves in. It sits vacant for a while. But when it becomes a hazard it is torn down, the lot is leveled — for community safety. Eventually humans will build something else there to use.

        We won’t be packing up New York City, moving the humans somewhere else and letting the bears move in.

        No. I disagree with the photographer’s take.

        Liked by 2 people

  2. If we don’t survive, we’ll most likely take all the big life with us. Including the polar bears. Life will continue, but like after the extinction causing asteroid it will start again from the small things that don’t need a lot of resources.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. Having read the article, it’s not at all clear to me why he believes that “sooner or later all human-made things on Earth will cease to exist”. He does say that he thinks civilization will cease to exist, but that’s inherent in any scenario where all man-made artifacts cease to exist, so it’s just another way of stating the same prediction, not an explanation of it. If he had intended to make a distinction between the disappearance of civilization and the extinction of humans, he would have explicitly said so, but he doesn’t — so I can only conclude that he is predicting humans will someday go extinct and therefore the relics of civilization will eventually vanish too. That’s the most straightforward interpretation of what he says.

    In any case, I can’t think of any plausible scenario in which civilization would disappear but some humans would continue to exist. Even if this somehow happened, the surviving humans would retain much of the knowledge required to rebuild the technology they had grown up with, and civilization would be rebuilt in a few centuries and spread over most of the world again in another few centuries — far less time than it would take for the material relics of the old civilization to disappear.

    If you’re imagining a scenario where humanity voluntarily renounces civilization and reverts to an animalistic state, this will never happen. First, it would involve the death of most of the human population, since only an advanced civilization can support anything like the numbers we have now. Second, even if some societies decided to do such a thing, there’s no way that every single country on Earth would make the sane decision. Eventually the societies which retained advanced technology would expand into the nearly-vacant and defenseless territories of those who had renounced it.

    I consider both the fall of civilization and the extinction of humans to be extremely unlikely. It could happen due to some really major natural disaster, such as an asteroid too large to divert, but such disasters too are very low-probability events. We’re not going to nuke ourselves out of existence (we’ve survived with nuclear weapons for over 70 years, and the world is far less warlike now than it was in the hays of the Korean or Vietnam wars), nor are we going to be wiped out by global warming (it may kill a lot of people, but there’s no scenario in which it kills everybody, and if it threatened to do so, we would resort to far more drastic measures to stop it than we’re currently contemplating). Nutcases like Paul Ehrlich have been predicting various doomsday scenarios for generations and they’ve always been wrong. Such scenarios these days are basically gimmicks used by the ignorant to win the approval of their fellows by showing off how cynical they can sound.

    If the transhumanist view is correct and most of human civilization eventually migrates into virtual-reality environments (human minds uploaded into computers), it might well migrate into space, since humans would no longer be a biological species in need of an Earthlike environment. But if the author of the article had that in mind, he would definitely have said so explicitly; which, again, he doesn’t. And even in that scenario, there would be some humans who chose not to be uploaded and preferred to remain biological (22nd-century equivalent of the Amish), and they would remain on Earth and civilization of some kind would continue here.

    Liked by 1 person

    • From my perspective, considering that he’s obviously “into” wild life, I think he’s saying that humans may eventually destroy themselves (end of civilization), but wildlife will continue on (i.e., “life is eternal”). IOW, he’s taking a more conjectural viewpoint.

      Note that he closes with But life will remain eternal only if we humans finally begin to take care of the planet and the living creatures that need our protection. Again, expressing himself as one who obviously has a great love and admiration for wildlife.

      Of course from the scientific POV, what you wrote is much more likely. 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

  4. I thought his comments were somewhat contradictory as well.
    If all man made things disappeared, it would be because man disappeared or was at best back in early hunter gatherer clans.

    And how is he defining civilization? More organized clans or small communities? It wouldn’t be NYC or Paris.

    As far as eternal life on earth, that I believe would be true, until the sun starts to cook the planet in several billion years. But at that point in the far future, I think man will be long gone but with some flora and fauna still around. Man may be dead or he may have moved on to the planets.

    I must admit there are times I think the planet would be much better off without us.

    Liked by 2 people

Don't Be Shy -- Tell Us What You Think!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.