4 ms·
The critique here is that the primary discussion is about fossilization rather than geological modification. A brutalist architecture building acts kind of like
by ChuckMcM 3y ago
The critique here is that the primary discussion is about fossilization rather than geological modification. A brutalist architecture building acts kind of like a granite batholith in sedimentary rock. And yes even then eventually things will likely be recycled but for definitions of the "last couple hundred million years" the argument can be made that there will be signs that something was making changes with intent.
- throwuwu 3y agoOnce it cracks and water reaches the rebar won’t it be gone in less than 200 years? Or at least reduced to a smear of gravel and iron?
- ChuckMcM 3y agoIn a scenario where sea levels rise, and it is surrounded by sand which is then compressed into sedimentary rock which carries it around "nominally" intact I would guess it survives for quite a while. Of course there isn't anything that says we can't create some tungsten spheres as containers to hold memorabilia from the current time. Even if recycled they would not be destroyed. Of course their interiors would get hot too so you're probably want to have your information etched on thin sheets of tungsten insider the sphere.
- Beldin 3y agoHuh? The "last couple of hundred million years" involves all current above sea-level landmass being subducted back into the mantle - probably more than once. We're talking about the Himalayas rising up and going back into the magma of the Earth's mantle and rising up again. I am really curious what kind of sign you envision will survive that onslaught.
- actionfromafar 3y agoWhat are the oldest rocks on Earth? Try to put stuff where that is most likely to happen again.