What If We All Disappeared?
What Would Happen if Humans Disappeared: A Post-Human Earth
Humans have impacted our world greatly, altering the composition of the atmosphere and damming rivers.
However, what would occur if we abruptly vanished?
Weeks one through three would be hectic.
Power plants would run out of fuel and shut down in a matter of hours.
More than 15 billion cows, over a billion pigs, and more than 20 billion chickens will burst out of their cages in search of food when the lights go down and the sting of electric fences wears off.
Most of these animals will starve to death or wind up as food for more than 500 million dogs and about the same number of cats that are left to fend for themselves in the absence of humans to provide for them.
It goes without saying that many of our fancy breeds are not fit for life in the wild, and that mutts that are more resilient than wolves, coyotes, and wildcats will likely outcompete them.
There will be severe drops in the populations of other creatures that depend on humans, such as cockroaches and rats.
Some will go extinct, such as head and body lice.
Many of our well-known boulevards in the cities are now waterways.
Water will soon flood subterranean subway tubes if there are no electric pumps to keep them dry.
Larger plants and trees will eventually take over other streets from weeds and vines.
However, fire will destroy the majority of cities before that can occur.
The majority of modern homes are still constructed of wood, particularly those in the suburbs.
A single lightning strike is all it takes to ignite a fire that might completely destroy an entire community if there are no firemen nearby.
Many wooden buildings in rural areas will be demolished in a few decades, if not by fire then by termites and other decaying organisms.
The majority of wood constructions will disappear in 100 years, and everything constructed of steel, including vehicles, bridges, and apartment complexes, won't be there for very long.
Since iron makes up the majority of steel, if paints and coatings are not applied often, steel will react with atmospheric oxygen and convert back into iron oxide, or rust.
The majority of animal species on the planet—at least the ones we haven't driven to extinction—will have returned to their pre-human levels by now, having existed for a few hundred years at this point.
However, their distribution will never change.
Australia is now home to camels, and several European-imported songbird species are still thriving in North America.
It's even feasible that escaped zoo animals may establish new wild populations in some regions of the planet, giving rise to the possibility of lions on the Great Plains or hippos in rivers in South America.
Our radios, satellites, and phones have produced electromagnetic radiation that will forever be dispersed throughout space.
But our rubbish could be the one thing on Earth that outlives us.
Plastics don't rust or corrode as metals do, and the chemical bonds that keep plastics or vulcanized rubber together are resistant to the majority of the digestive enzymes employed by bacteria to break down natural polymers.
These tiny plastic particles end up deposited in sediments when they find their way into rivers or the ocean. In hundreds of millions of years, space scientists studying sedimentary rocks could be shocked to discover microscopic carbon-based fragments that were formerly found in plastic bags or rubber tires.
Of course, a lot relies on the circumstances as to whether something survives.
In deserts, everything will last considerably longer because there isn't any moisture to promote corrosion or harbor deteriorating organisms.
Furthermore, although it will take a few millennia for the carbon cycle to bring CO2 levels back to balance, localized accumulations of persistent organic compounds or radioactive material may last for a very, very long period.
It's difficult to predict what future extraterrestrial paleontologists will think of us and how they will explain things like our affinity for plastic or the fact that, in the span of a single geological eyeblink, humans blasted out of Africa and settled almost every habitable region on the planet.
They will, however, undoubtedly question why, given our prolonged success, we vanished so rapidly.
About the Creator
Mariam Fathalrahman
Whether you’re a nature lover, a history buff, or simply someone who enjoys a good read, there’s something here for you, diving into topics as diverse as the mysteries of Earth and nature. Join me, and let’s explore the world together.
Keep reading
More stories from Mariam Fathalrahman and writers in Earth and other communities.
The Biggest LIE About Climate Change
This is the tale of how your future financial security was pilfered without your knowledge or awareness. In the 1970s, everyone was in favor of peace, but Exxon, an oil business, was also founded. They were fixated on invention, a concept that currently fascinates us. Thus, Exxon decided to make scientific investments. Once more, Exxon employed experts who were among the first to publish a number of ground-breaking studies outlining how burning fossil fuels will affect the climate because the carbon dioxide emitted will have a greenhouse impact. Don't you think it's ironic that oil firms were the ones who uncovered climate change?
By Mariam Fathalrahmanabout a year ago in Earth
Europe Draws a Red Line on Greenland After a Year of Trying to Pacify Trump
For nearly a year, European leaders walked a diplomatic tightrope. They tried calm language, quiet reassurance, and strategic patience as former U.S. President Donald Trump repeatedly revived his controversial interest in Greenland. What began as provocative rhetoric gradually evolved into something Europe could no longer ignore. Now, after months of behind-the-scenes diplomacy, Europe has drawn a clear red line on Greenland — signaling that compromise has its limits when sovereignty and regional security are at stake. This shift marks more than a response to one leader’s remarks. It reflects Europe’s growing determination to defend territorial integrity, manage Arctic competition, and assert strategic autonomy in an increasingly unpredictable geopolitical environment. How Greenland Became a Flashpoint Again Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, has long held strategic importance. Rich in rare earth minerals, located along key Arctic routes, and home to critical U.S. military infrastructure, the island sits at the crossroads of security, climate change, and great-power rivalry. Donald Trump’s original proposal in 2019 to “buy” Greenland was widely mocked in Europe. But as his political influence resurged, so did concerns that his renewed interest was not just symbolic. Over the past year, Trump’s rhetoric — framed around U.S. security, resource access, and countering China and Russia in the Arctic — became more persistent. European capitals initially chose restraint. Officials hoped that de-escalation, quiet diplomacy, and alliance solidarity would prevent the issue from spiraling into a transatlantic rift. A Year of European Pacification For much of the past year, Europe adopted a strategy of pacification rather than confrontation. Denmark emphasized its close defense cooperation with Washington. EU leaders reiterated NATO unity and the importance of Arctic stability. Diplomats avoided public criticism, choosing private channels instead. The goal was clear: prevent Trump’s Greenland narrative from becoming official U.S. policy while preserving transatlantic relations. However, this approach had limits. As Trump’s language grew sharper — hinting at leverage, pressure, or “strategic necessity” — European patience began to erode. What once sounded like political theater increasingly resembled a challenge to European sovereignty norms. Why Europe Finally Drew the Line Europe’s tougher stance did not emerge overnight. It was driven by several converging realities. 1. Sovereignty Is Non-Negotiable At the heart of Europe’s response is a firm principle: territorial sovereignty cannot be bargained away. Greenland is not a commodity, and its future cannot be dictated by external powers — regardless of alliance ties. European leaders made it clear that any attempt to apply pressure on Denmark or Greenland would cross a red line, undermining international law and democratic self-determination. 2. Arctic Competition Is Intensifying The Arctic is no longer a frozen backwater. Melting ice has opened new shipping routes and intensified competition over resources. Russia has militarized large parts of its Arctic territory, while China has declared itself a “near-Arctic state.” Against this backdrop, Europe fears that normalizing aggressive rhetoric over Greenland could set a dangerous precedent, encouraging other powers to challenge borders under the guise of security or economic necessity. 3. Europe’s Strategic Confidence Has Grown Compared to 2019, Europe today is less willing to absorb geopolitical shocks quietly. The war in Ukraine accelerated Europe’s defense integration and sharpened its sense of strategic responsibility. Standing firm on Greenland is part of a broader shift: Europe is signaling that being a U.S. ally does not mean surrendering political agency. Greenland’s Own Voice Matters One crucial difference between past debates and today is the prominence of Greenlandic leaders themselves. Officials in Nuuk have repeatedly emphasized that Greenland’s future will be decided by its people, not by foreign capitals. Calls for respect, partnership, and economic development — rather than transactional geopolitics — have resonated strongly in Europe. By drawing a red line, European leaders are also amplifying Greenland’s right to self-determination, reinforcing the idea that Arctic communities are stakeholders, not strategic prizes. What This Means for Transatlantic Relations Europe’s firmer stance does not signal a break with the United States. NATO cooperation in the Arctic remains strong, and U.S. military presence in Greenland continues with Danish consent. However, the message is unmistakable: allies must respect boundaries. European officials are increasingly willing to publicly disagree with Washington when core principles are threatened. This reflects a maturing alliance — one where unity does not require silence. In the long run, this clarity may actually strengthen transatlantic relations, reducing ambiguity and preventing future misunderstandings. A Signal Beyond Greenland Europe’s red line on Greenland sends a message far beyond the Arctic. It signals to Russia and China that Europe will defend its territorial order, even under pressure from powerful actors. It reassures smaller states that sovereignty remains a foundational norm. And it underscores that Europe is learning to balance diplomacy with firmness in an era of great-power competition. Conclusion: From Pacification to Principle After a year of cautious diplomacy, Europe has chosen principle over placation. The red line drawn around Greenland is not an act of hostility — it is an assertion of values. In a world where power politics are returning, Europe is making one thing clear: sovereignty is not negotiable, alliances are not blank checks, and Arctic stability requires respect — not rhetoric. Greenland may be vast and sparsely populated, but the message Europe is sending from its icy shores is unmistakably global.
By Muhammad Hassan4 days ago in Earth
A Failed Artist, A Disillusioned Poet, An Underpaid Game Show Host
I took my son and niece to Gori, a small town in Georgia where Joseph Stalin was born. They talked me into visiting the Stalin's Museum, the largest in the post-Soviet space. I had resisted going there because I just can't stand the monster and know enough about him, or so I thought.
By Lana V Lynx6 days ago in FYI
Comments (2)
Lol, its going to be crazy if we all vanished
Well written